In a move that caught governments and analysts off guard, US forces arrested Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, in Caracas and flew them to New York to face criminal charges. The operation, involving multiple branches of the US military, immediately sent shockwaves across the globe.
Shortly after the arrests, President Donald Trump announced that the United States would temporarily take control of Venezuela, saying Washington would oversee the country until a “safe, proper and judicious transition” could be put in place.
“We can’t take a chance that somebody else takes over Venezuela who doesn’t have the good of the Venezuelan people in mind,” Trump said during a news conference at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida.
Washington Claims Interim Control
Trump said the US would run Venezuela “with a group” and indicated that senior officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Dan Caine, would play key roles. However, he offered few specifics on how the interim administration would function or how long it would last.
At one point, Trump claimed Venezuela’s vice president, Delcy Rodríguez, had already been sworn in as Maduro’s successor and was prepared to cooperate with US plans. Venezuelan authorities, however, have made no such announcement, adding to the uncertainty surrounding the situation.
Trump described the move as a decisive escalation after months of speculation about whether the US would intervene directly in Venezuela. “We’re not afraid of boots on the ground,” he said, adding that major US oil companies would be brought in to rebuild the country’s damaged energy infrastructure and invest billions of dollars.
He also warned that the US was prepared to launch “a second and much larger attack” if necessary.
Legal Justifications and Political Backlash
Secretary of State Marco Rubio defended the operation as a law enforcement action supported by the military, arguing that Congressional approval was not required. He said Maduro had been indicted in the United States in 2020 and was a fugitive facing a $50 million reward.
“He is not the legitimate president of Venezuela,” Rubio said. “He’s a fugitive of American justice. I guess we’re saving $50 million now.”
Trump suggested Congress was not informed in advance because details of the operation could have leaked.
Democrats in Washington reacted sharply, warning that the arrest set a dangerous global precedent. Senator Mark Warner, vice chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, questioned what would stop other powers from using similar justifications to abduct foreign leaders.
“Once this line is crossed, the rules that restrain global chaos begin to collapse,” Warner said, accusing the administration of hypocrisy by comparing the operation to Trump’s earlier pardon of former Honduran president Juan Orlando Hernández, who had been convicted on drug trafficking charges in the US.
Uncertain Future for Venezuela and the Region
Republicans largely rallied behind Trump. Senator Roger Wicker, chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, praised the operation as the culmination of a months-long effort to weaken what he described as narco-terrorist networks linked to Maduro.
“The Venezuelan people must now act swiftly to put their country back on a path to peace and prosperity,” Wicker said.
Analysts, however, cautioned that the consequences could be severe. Daniel DePetris of the Defense Priorities think tank warned that Venezuela could face military splits, expanded criminal activity, civil conflict, or even the rise of a more repressive leader.
“None of these outcomes would bode well for regional stability or US interests,” he said.
DePetris also noted that the Trump administration’s justification for targeting Maduro has shifted repeatedly, ranging from drug trafficking accusations to oil disputes and democracy promotion. While US officials have portrayed Venezuela as a major security threat, DePetris argued the country is more accurately described as a bankrupt state whose economy has collapsed over the past decade.
Whether this unprecedented intervention leads to recovery or deeper instability remains an open and deeply consequential question.
