The United States attacked Venezuela and captured President Nicolás Maduro in early January 2026 as part of a large, Trump‑ordered military operation officially framed around “narco‑terrorism” charges and U.S. security interests, but widely seen as also being about oil, migration politics, and regional power.

What actually happened

  • In the early hours of 3 January 2026, U.S. forces carried out coordinated airstrikes on military and air‑defense targets around Caracas and other northern areas of Venezuela.
  • The operation, reportedly involving special forces, ended with Nicolás Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores being taken into U.S. custody and flown out of Venezuela.
  • The Trump administration said the strikes were not a full‑scale invasion, but a limited mission tied to law‑enforcement and counter‑narcotics objectives.

Official reasons given by the U.S.

U.S. officials and Trump’s public statements have emphasized several official justifications.

  • Narco‑terrorism and drug trafficking
    • Maduro was under a long‑standing U.S. indictment alleging he helped run the “Cártel de los Soles,” trafficking large quantities of cocaine toward the United States in cooperation with Colombian armed groups.
* The administration presented the operation as finally enforcing those indictments and dismantling a state‑linked criminal network.
  • Corruption and authoritarianism
    • Washington has refused to recognize Maduro as Venezuela’s legitimate leader for years, accusing his government of widespread corruption, destroying democratic institutions, and using security forces and gangs to hold power.
* Officials framed the strike as removing a “criminal regime” and supporting democratic restoration, even though no clear transition plan was presented publicly at first.
  • Security and migration
    • Trump claimed Maduro was “emptying prisons and asylums” and pushing people toward the U.S. border, tying Venezuelan migration to a broader security threat.
* The operation was sold domestically as protecting Americans from crime, drugs, and instability “exported” from Venezuela.

Other motives analysts and critics point to

Outside governments, experts, and commentators highlight a mix of strategic and political motives that go beyond the official narrative.

  • Oil and resources
    • Venezuela has some of the world’s largest proven oil reserves, and U.S.–Venezuela tensions have long been tied to control over those resources.
* Commentators note that the U.S. had already tightened sanctions and seized tankers carrying Venezuelan oil, seeing the strike as the climax of a broader pressure campaign to reshape who controls that sector.
  • Regional influence and signaling
    • Analysts place the attack in a long history of U.S. interventions in Latin America aimed at shaping political outcomes and limiting anti‑U.S. regimes in the Western Hemisphere.
* U.S. officials and allies hinted that the action should worry other governments aligned with Maduro, such as Cuba, turning the operation into a message to the region.
  • Domestic U.S. politics
    • Some political commentators argue the strike helped Trump project toughness, rally parts of his base, and change the subject from domestic controversies.
* In online forums and opinion pieces, users speculate about distraction from scandals (including high‑profile document releases), though those claims are political interpretations rather than confirmed motives.

How Venezuela and others describe it

  • Venezuelan leaders called the action an illegal attack on their sovereignty and described Maduro’s capture as a “kidnapping,” demanding his release and “proof of life.”
  • Maduro’s allies insist he remained the legitimate president and portray the operation as a coup‑like removal orchestrated from abroad.
  • Human‑rights and international‑law experts are now debating whether the strike meets any accepted self‑defense or humanitarian‑intervention standard, or whether it is a clear breach of international law.

Bottom line

  • Why did “we” attack?
    • Officially: to arrest a leader accused of narco‑terrorism, fight drug trafficking, and “restore democracy” while protecting U.S. security.
* In practice: the move also fits a pattern of U.S. interventions driven by oil interests, migration politics, and regional power calculations, with strong domestic political overtones and intense controversy over its legality and long‑term consequences.

Information gathered from public forums or data available on the internet and portrayed here.