Category World News

According to Donald Trump, a US military operation succeeded in capturing Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores, both of whom are facing federal drug trafficking charges, according to newly released indictments.

Trump stated in a press conference held on January 3 that the US would remain in power until a “safe, proper, and judicious transition is made.”

Delcy Rodriguez, the vice president of Venezuela, was sworn in as the interim president, according to Trump. Rodriguez, the US president, claimed that he had spoken with Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state, and that he was “essentially willing to do what we believe is necessary to make Venezuela great again.”

Rodrigues, however, on state television, referred to the US military action as “brutal aggression” and demanded that Maduro be freed right away.

Hugo Chavez, a political ally, has been in power since 1999, and Maduro has taken over Venezuela. US relations with Venezuela deteriorated under the leadership of both men regarding oil, human rights, and foreign policy.

After an election that international observers deemed to be fraudulent, Maduro won in July 2024. Edmundo Gonzalez Urrutia, the opposition candidate in the country, reportedly received about 70% of the vote.

More than 100 people were killed when the US government began attacking vessels off the coast of Venezuela in what Trump described as an effort to thwart drug smuggling, which escalated in the US government’s grip.

Following Maduro’s arrest, Trump claimed that Machado “doesn’t have the support or the respect within the country” when a reporter inquired about him during the Mar-a-Lago media event.

In a March 2025 poll conducted by ClearPath Strategies, Machado received a 72% approval rating from Venezuelans for her fight for democracy.

Trump claimed without providing any proof that US oil companies would invest in new infrastructure in Venezuela in exchange for the oil-rich nation’s backing. He predicted that it would generate a lot of revenue.

Trump and Rubio’s statements were fact-checked by PolitiFact during the press conference.

Rubio: “It’s just not the kind of mission you can pre-notify [Congress about] because it puts the mission in danger.”

The Trump administration’s disregard for precedents and laws violates them. &nbsp,

According to Rubio, Congress members weren’t made aware of the US’s response to Venezuela. Trump expressed concern that the administration might be able to leak information about Maduro’s capture by Congress.

Republican from South Dakota, Republican in the chamber, praised the operation as a “decisive action.”

However, Congressional Democrats claimed that notification to Congress was required in advance. Democrat from Virginia senator Tim Kaine remarked, “Maduro is terrible. Trump’s unauthorised attack, however, put American service members in danger.

We are left with no idea how the administration is preparing to mitigate risks to the US, according to New Hampshire Senator Jeanne Shaheen, who claimed Trump and his cabinet were unwilling to say what kind of long-term plan would be following today’s extraordinary escalation.

Congress has the authority to declare war under the US Constitution. This occurred last during World War II.

Presidents have typically launched military action since then without making an official declaration of war.

Since the 1973 War Powers Resolution was passed by Congress, the president has been required to report to Congress within 48 hours of launching an American military operation and to end military operations within 60 days unless it consents. An additional 30 days are granted for the termination of operations if the president determines it is necessary and the approval is not granted.

In recent years, congressional authorization for the use of military force has typically been obtained. However, Venezuelan businesses still require this authorization. Without the consent of Congress, Kaine and other lawmakers have been working on legislation that has so far failed to pass.

Prior notification requirements have been stymied away by the Trump administration. Eight bipartisan senior members of Congress must be given notice of particularly sensitive covert actions in accordance with federal law. The administration informed Republicans about a US strike on Iranian nuclear facilities in June 2025, but not Democrats. No lawmakers were reportedly informed in advance of the Venezuela operation.

Trump: 25 000 people are saved by each US boat strike off Venezuela’s coast.

Since September, the Trump administration has struck at least 32 ships in the Caribbean Sea and Eastern Pacific Ocean, killing roughly 115 people. Trump previously claimed that the ships were bringing drugs into the US, and that he predicted that “on average, 25, 000 people would die on each boat.”

However, Venezuelan experts claimed that the nation only participates in the US’s drug trafficking. Additionally, the administration has not provided any details about the type or quantity of the substances said to be present on the ships. Due to the lack of information, how many lethal doses of the drug could have been eliminated.

Between May 2024 and April 2025, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported 73, 000 drug overdose deaths in the US. According to Trump, this means that nearly 11 times as many US overdose deaths occur annually are due to the drugs on 32 boats, which would have killed 800,000 people.

Trump: “Maduro sent savage and murderous gangs to terrorize American communities nationwide,” including the bloody prison gang Tren de Aragua.

No proof exists that Maduro deported Tren de Aragua members from Venezuela to the US.

Trump’s statement is not mentioned in the US Justice Department’s indictment against Maduro.

Trump’s claims about connections between Tren de Aragua and Maduro were refuted by an April report from the US National Intelligence Council.

The Maduro regime probably does not have a policy of cooperating with TDA and is not directing TDA movements to and operations in the United States, according to the report. Venezuela’s permissive environment also allows TDA to operate.

Trump: Venezuela “stole” US oil in the past.

Juan Vicente Gomez, Venezuela’s long-serving hardline leader, granted foreign companies almost exclusive access to Venezuela’s oil resources in the early 20th century.

Venezuela nationalized its oil industry in 1975, after years of trying to control its oil resources.

Trump’s assertion that Venezuela has taken oil and land from the US is unsupported, according to Francisco Rodrigueez, a Venezuelan economist at the University of Denver. Rodrigues continued, “The US was much more interested in having Venezuela provide a relatively cheap supply of oil than a Venezuelan production collapse.”

In consequence, he claimed, the change was “relatively uncontroversial” at the time.

According to news reports, US oil companies, including Exxon and Mobil and Gulf, which is now Chevron, lost about $5 billion in assets and received $1 billion in compensation, according to The Washington Post.

Rodrigueez claimed that, in part because there wasn’t a forum to do so, the companies did not attempt to request additional compensation at the time.

Invading a nation to extract its oil would be both unethical and illegal, according to experts who spoke to PolitiFact. Trump questioned how the US should have invaded Iraq and taken its oil when Saddam Hussein was the country’s then-leader in 2016.

According to experts, “private property must be respected [and] cannot be confiscated,” according to the annex to The Hague Convention of 1907 on the Laws and Customs of War. Additionally, it states that “pillage is officially forbidden.”

Venezuela’s border with Brazil has been temporarily closed following the US’s early morning attack on Caracas, where US forces also “captured” President Nicolas Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores.

A Brazilian military official told Al Jazeera that the border crossing between Pacaraima, Brazil’s capital and Santa Elena de Uairen, Venezuela, had been closed for about five hours, preventing foreigners from entering Brazil.

Venezuela’s entry and exit criteria were not specifically stated in the official protocol. Brazilians are permitted to leave, but Venezuelans are subject to restrictions. The official, who was speaking on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to speak on the subject, claimed that this could change at any time.

The governor of the state of Roraima informed Reuters that the border had been reopened following the brief closure, and the head of Brazil’s Federal Police made the announcement.

Brazil’s government stated that it is monitoring the border and has dispatched military personnel there to increase security.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Brazil stated in a statement that “the minister of defense indicated that there is no unusual activity on the border between Brazil and Venezuela, which will continue to be monitored,” and that he is speaking with the Roraima governor.

The Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics estimates that Venezuelans make up the country’s largest foreign population. 77,563 people from Roraima are a single immigrant in the state. In total, 8 million Venezuelans have left their homes over the past ten years, with more than 6 million others settling in other Latin American nations.

According to Jessica Leon Cedeno, a Venezuelan journalist who lives in Sao Paulo, “I believe it’s very possible that there will be an exodus of Venezuelans to Brazil, and we are already seeing tangible signs of it.”

“Many people have emigrated to the United States in search of better opportunities and living conditions.”

Lula claims that US attacks could “destabilize” the area.

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva criticized US President Donald Trump’s actions in Venezuela on Saturday as “unacceptable.”

Lula on X wrote, “The bombings on Venezuelan territory and the capture of its president cross an unacceptable line.” This is another extremely dangerous precedent for the entire international community and a grave affront to Venezuela’s sovereignty.

In light of Venezuela’s growing US military presence off the coast, Brazil’s leader has urged restraint for months.

Analysts worry that Maduro’s removal could cause Venezuela to become a rogue state, leading to a further wave of mass migration, as it did in 2019 following a failed attempt to remove him.

A potential wave of migration, according to Joao Carlos Jarochinski Silva, a professor of international relations at the Federal University of Roraima, would depend on a number of factors, including whether Maduro’s regime will continue its military operations there and whether what remains of Maduro’s regime will rebel.

What is Chavismo’s resilience capacity in Venezuela? referring to the political movement whose name was derived from Hugo Chavez, Jarochinski Silva said. Given the current circumstances, there is no reason to be concerned about the consequences that might be truly worrying.

He continued, noting that Trump has not addressed pressing humanitarian issues and has only recently focused on applauding his military’s actions in Venezuela. The Trump administration cut funding for USAID, Venezuela’s main international aid organization, earlier this year, which had a significant impact on Brazil and Colombia’s neighbors.

Venezuela’s president and his wife have been sequestered by US special forces.

In response to widespread condemnation of the US’s actions against Venezuela and President Nicolas Maduro, US President Donald Trump and his allies have defended the US’s actions.

Trump claimed on Saturday that Maduro had been “captured” after US military operations in Caracas, the country’s capital, were alleged to have carried out a “campaign of deadly narco-terrorism against the United States.

He claimed that the US would “run” the South American nation in the event of a political transition, promising Venezuelans would become “rich, independent, and safe.”

However, Professor of Law Claire Finkelstein of the University of Pennsylvania has refuted the Trump administration’s claims that it defends both its plans to impose control over Venezuela and its attacks and removal.

Finkelstein described the attacks as “illegal use of force]and a violation of Venezuelan sovereignty,” saying, “I don’t believe there is any basis under international law for the action that occurred by the US government.”

According to her, “Maduro has personal jurisdiction rights, so it violates both his personal and international rights and the sovereignty of Venezuela.”

States are prohibited from attacking another country without provoking any provision of international law, including the UN Charter.

The UN Charter forbids “all Members from using force to threaten or undermine any state’s territorial integrity or political independence, or in any other way that goes against the UN’s objectives.”

The US actions came as a result of a months-long campaign to pressure Maduro into giving false information about his connections to drug traffickers.

Washington had ordered deadly attacks on alleged drug-smuggling vessels off the Venezuelan coast, sanctioned Maduro’s family, and threatened to launch attacks on the country’s soil.

Top Trump ally Tom Cotton, a US Congressman, welcomed the actions taken against the Venezuelan leader on social media on Saturday, noting that “Nicolas Maduro wasn’t just an illegitimate dictator, he also ran a vast drug-trafficking operation.”

Before being sequestered, Maduro had stated that he was willing to talk about drug dealing with the US. Additionally, he claimed that Venezuela’s vast oil reserves were being taken over by the Trump administration.

No “imminent threat”

Democrats in the US had been requesting answers from the Trump administration regarding its intentions in Venezuela, accusing the Republican president of trying to carry out unlawful war operations without the consent of Congress.

Only Congress has the authority to declare war, according to the US Constitution.

However, that authority has weakened over the past few decades as a result of the US’s use of loosely interpreted congressional authorizations to carry out military strikes all over the world during its so-called “war on terror.”

The top Democrat on the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee, Gregory Meeks, stated on Saturday that “there was no imminent threat to the United States” from Venezuela, which was “certainly not one that justified military action without congressional authorization.”

In a statement shared on social media, Meeks stated that “these actions violate both US and international law and that, by Trump’s own admission, this is not a limited operation.”

There is no “immediate threat” to the US that would justify the executive branch carrying out attacks without a notification to Congress, according to Finkelstein, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania.

We did not have the kind of self-defence justification that would ordinarily allow Congress to bypass Congress, she told Al Jazeera. “It was an act of war against Venezuela,” she said.

There isn’t the kind of imminentness that would justify the president acting unilaterally and not trying to persuade Congress to join the effort. Even if you think the US is in grave danger as a result of drug trafficking, that is.

Finkelstein also criticized Trump’s “run” of Venezuela as being “incredibly illegal.”

You can’t just invade and conquer them, she said, “because states have sovereignty rights.”

We don’t have the right to enter Maduro’s government and begin running it, according to Finkelstein, even if he suddenly departed on his own accord.