featured
Trump Invades Venezuela & Kidnaps Maduro – Says Cuba’s Next // Glenn Greenwald
Glenn Greenwald | Trusted Newsmaker
U.S. Bombs Venezuela and Detains Nicolás Maduro, Opening a New Chapter of Regime Change
Just days into the new year, the United States launched airstrikes across Venezuela, including multiple strikes in the capital, Caracas, marking Washington’s first new war of 2026. The Trump administration confirmed the bombing campaign and announced that Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife were taken into U.S. custody and removed from the country, triggering global concern over another unilateral regime change operation.
Video footage of the strikes circulated widely online within hours, corroborated by Venezuelan officials and U.S. sources. While the administration framed the operation as a decisive action against a criminal leader, critics warned that the scale and speed of the attack left little room for public scrutiny or legal authorization, particularly given the absence of congressional approval for a new war.
No Congressional Authorization, Little Public Debate
The strikes were carried out without a declaration of war or explicit authorization from Congress, despite constitutional requirements that lawmakers approve new military conflicts. There was also minimal public debate in advance of the operation. During the campaign, Trump did not promise military action against Venezuela, nor did he outline plans for regime change there.
Maduro had been indicted by the United States in 2020 on drug trafficking charges, with a multimillion-dollar bounty placed on his capture during Trump’s first term. While critics of Maduro celebrated his removal, opponents of the operation argued that indictments do not justify bombing a sovereign country or killing civilians.
A Familiar Pattern From Past Interventions
Analysts quickly drew comparisons to past U.S. regime change operations, including the 1989 invasion of Panama, when U.S. forces removed Manuel Noriega under similar drug trafficking accusations. That operation destabilized Panama and failed to significantly curb drug flows into the United States, raising questions about whether the Venezuela intervention will produce different results.
More recent examples also loom large. The capture of Saddam Hussein in Iraq and the killing of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya were both followed by prolonged instability, civil conflict, and humanitarian crises. In each case, the removal of a single leader did not bring peace or democracy, but instead fueled years of violence and displacement.
Unclear Objectives and High Risks
As of now, the Trump administration has not clearly articulated its long-term objectives in Venezuela. One possibility is that the operation was limited to detaining Maduro, without plans to restructure the Venezuelan government. If so, critics ask what purpose the bombing served beyond setting a dangerous precedent for future interventions.
The alternative scenario is more consequential: full-scale regime change. In that case, the United States could become responsible for Venezuela’s political stability, economic recovery, and internal security. Given the country’s deep divisions and history of external pressure, analysts warn that such involvement could ignite civil conflict and worsen regional instability.
Drug War Claims Under Scrutiny
The administration cited drug trafficking as part of its justification, yet data undermines that rationale. Venezuela is not a major source of fentanyl, the drug driving the U.S. overdose crisis. Most fentanyl enters the United States through Mexico, using precursor chemicals sourced elsewhere. Critics argue that invoking drugs serves as a familiar pretext rather than a substantive explanation for military action.
