The United States attacked Venezuela in early January 2026 in a surprise operation that U.S. officials frame as a combination of counter‑narcotics action, enforcement of U.S. criminal charges against Nicolás Maduro, and a move to reshape Venezuela’s political and oil landscape. Many other governments and analysts describe it instead as an illegal regime‑change operation aimed at controlling Venezuela’s vast energy resources.

What actually happened

  • On 3 January 2026, U.S. forces launched coordinated airstrikes on multiple targets in and around Caracas and other northern areas of Venezuela under Operation Absolute Resolve.
  • During the operation, U.S. troops captured President Nicolás Maduro and transported him to the United States to face long‑standing U.S. narcotics and corruption charges.
  • President Donald Trump then announced that the U.S. would “run” Venezuela until there is a “safe, proper and judicious transition” to a new government and signaled that U.S. companies would be heavily involved in the country’s oil sector.

Stated U.S. reasons

U.S. leaders have offered several overlapping justifications:

  • Drug trafficking and “narco‑terrorism” :
    • Washington has for years accused Maduro and figures around him (often referred to as the Cartel de los Soles) of running a major cocaine trafficking network into the U.S., and Trump’s administration labeled related groups as foreign terrorist organizations.
* U.S. officials pointed to earlier strikes on suspected drug‑trafficking vessels in the Caribbean, interdictions at sea, and bounties on Maduro as part of a broader counter‑narcotics campaign that supposedly culminated in the 2026 strikes.
  • Enforcing U.S. indictments and “bringing Maduro to justice” :
    • The U.S. Department of Justice has standing indictments against Maduro for narcotics and corruption; Trump and his team argue that capturing him in Venezuela and flying him to the U.S. is a legitimate way to enforce those criminal cases.
* Supporters in Washington present the operation as the removal of a “criminal regime” that has devastated Venezuela’s economy and driven mass migration across the region and into the U.S.
  • Restoring democracy / regime change :
    • Trump has repeatedly said he does not recognize Maduro as legitimately elected and claims the operation opens the door to a “democratic transition” led by opposition figures and compliant military officers.
* U.S. rhetoric casts the move as liberating Venezuelans from authoritarian rule and supporting a future “free and democratic Venezuela,” though without a clear, internationally agreed transition plan.

Suspected deeper motives

Many governments, analysts, and Venezuelan officials see other, less‑stated drivers:

  • Control of oil and other resources :
    • Venezuela holds some of the world’s largest proven oil reserves, and Trump openly talked about U.S. companies being “very strongly involved” in Venezuela’s oil and about “taking back” oil to compensate U.S. costs.
* Critics argue this makes the operation look like a 21st‑century resource war, with democracy and anti‑drug efforts as political cover.
  • Geopolitics and great‑power rivalry :
    • Under Maduro, Venezuela deepened ties with China, Russia, and Iran, all rivals of the United States, through energy, military, and financial cooperation.
* Removing Maduro and reshaping Venezuela’s orientation is seen by some U.S. strategists as a way to push back against those powers in the Western Hemisphere and signal that Washington will still use force to shape regional politics.
  • Domestic politics in the U.S. :
    • A tough stance on Maduro and on migration from Venezuela has been central to Trump’s political messaging; high‑profile military action can rally parts of his base that favor assertive foreign policy and hardline anti‑drug and anti‑immigration measures.
* Supporters in Congress argue that a “victory” in Venezuela could help stabilize migration flows and weaken allied regimes like Cuba, while opponents accuse the administration of starting an unnecessary and illegal war for electoral gain.

How Venezuela and the world are reacting

  • Venezuelan government’s view :
    • Before and after Maduro’s capture, officials in Caracas called the strikes an illegal act of aggression and “kidnapping,” insisting the real goal is regime‑change and seizure of Venezuela’s energy, mineral, and natural resources.
* The Supreme Tribunal ordered Vice President Delcy Rodríguez to assume the presidency, declared a state of emergency, and pledged to resist any foreign occupation, even as parts of the state apparatus remain shaken and divided.
  • Regional and global response :
    • Leaders in Latin America such as Brazil’s President Lula and Colombia’s President Petro condemned the strikes as violations of Venezuelan and regional sovereignty and warned they set a dangerous precedent.
* China and Russia also denounced the operation as a breach of international law, while so far stopping short of direct military involvement; some U.S. allies have expressed concern about escalation and the legality of the intervention.

Different viewpoints in debate

Supportive arguments (mostly from U.S. officials and some opposition figures):

  • Maduro is seen as an illegitimate, criminal leader whose removal could enable a transition to democracy and economic recovery.
  • The operation is framed as an extension of counter‑narcotics and anti‑terrorism policy, taking down a major “narco‑state” that fuels U.S. drug markets and regional instability.
  • Supporters argue that strong U.S. involvement, including in oil, can help rebuild Venezuela quickly and reduce migration pressures on neighboring countries and the U.S. border.

Critical arguments (from much of Latin America, many legal scholars, and U.S. critics):

  • The strikes and capture of a sitting president without UN authorization or regional backing are widely described as violations of international law and Venezuelan sovereignty.
  • The heavy emphasis on oil involvement and Trump’s own comments fuel accusations that this is primarily about resource control, not democracy or drugs.
  • Critics warn that “running” Venezuela risks long‑term occupation, insurgency, and regional destabilization, with ordinary Venezuelans paying the highest price through disruption, violence, and economic uncertainty.

In short: the U.S. says it attacked Venezuela to combat narcotics, enforce criminal charges against Maduro, and push a transition away from authoritarian rule, while many others argue the deeper reasons lie in oil, geopolitics, and domestic U.S. politics—making this one of the most contentious interventions in Latin America in decades.