By Ted Lewis, Global Exchange Co-Executive Director
January 4, 2026
In the early hours of January 3, the United States carried out a large-scale military strike on Venezuela, resulting in multiple explosions in Caracas and other parts of the country. President Donald Trump has announced that Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife have been captured and flown out of the country following the operation — the most dramatic U.S. intervention in Latin America since the 1989 invasion of Panama.
What the administration is calling a decisive blow against “narcoterrorism” and organized crime is, in fact, a fundamental rupture in the post-World War II international order. It is also a dramatic escalation of a long-standing U.S. pursuit of regime change that threatens not just Venezuelan sovereignty, but the stability of the wider region and the foundations of democratic legitimacy at home.
Let there be no doubt: this is not a routine law-enforcement operation. It is a military assault on a sovereign nation’s capital and leadership, justified by presidential authority, but without clear congressional authorization. It marks the first time in decades that the U.S. has targeted a sitting head of state in such a direct manner.
Supporters of the strike will point to Maduro’s indictments in U.S. courts and long allegations of corruption and repression. Those concerns, serious as they may be, already existed within a legal and diplomatic framework. They did not, until now, justify the kind of military action that has been unleashed. Congress was not consulted, the United Nations Charter was ignored, and the principle of non-intervention — long upheld as a cornerstone of international law — has been cast aside in practice.
History offers a cautionary tale. In 2003, the United States invaded Iraq on dubious premises of imminent threat. The result was massive civilian casualties, regional disintegration, and a long-term erosion of U.S. credibility — outcomes that took decades to partially repair. Today, as then, moral rhetoric is being used to justify a strategy with profound geopolitical and humanitarian consequences.
This action also contradicts basic democratic norms at home. The U.S. Constitution entrusts war powers to Congress; a unilateral strike of this magnitude—especially one involving the capture of a foreign head of state—raises urgent constitutional questions. Members of Congress from both parties have already criticized the administration for bypassing legislative oversight, pointing out that American interests and public opinion overwhelmingly reject open-ended foreign military adventures.
The regional reaction has been swift and stern. Brazil’s president has called the strike an “unacceptable line crossed” and a violation of Venezuela’s sovereignty. Cuba labeled it a “criminal attack,” while Colombia has mobilized forces along its border and urged peaceful resolution. Russia and Iran have condemned the action as a violation of international law.
Latin America has a long memory of foreign intervention — from gunboat diplomacy to covert operations — and the new episode is likely to deepen mistrust of U.S. intentions.
The timing of this operation and the rhetoric that accompanies it also raise challenging questions about what comes next. Leadership vacuums rarely lead to peaceful democratic transitions; instead, they often invite instability, factional violence, and external interference. U.S. control or administration of Venezuelan affairs — even temporarily — risks entangling Americans in a quagmire of governance, conflict, and resource competition.
Climate change, migration pressures, economic fragility, and humanitarian needs already strain the nations of the Western Hemisphere. A new escalation in Venezuela will not address these challenges; it will distract from them and likely exacerbate them.
If the United States truly seeks to support democracy in the Americas, it must abandon the illusion that force can deliver it. Democracy grows through sustained engagement, respect for international norms, and a willingness to cooperate with regional partners — not through regime-change campaigns that deepen suffering, embolden authoritarian reflexes abroad, and erode constitutional restraint at home.
The events of January 3, 2026, will reverberate far beyond Caracas. They mark the beginning of a dangerous chapter in U.S. foreign relations — one that risks instability for the region and the evisceration of democratic principles the United States claims to uphold.