A controversial US military operation resulting in the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro has drawn significant criticism from foreign policy experts, who question both its legality and underlying motivations. The intervention, which involved direct strikes on Venezuelan territory and the forcible seizure of the national leader, has ignited intense debate regarding its implications for international norms and regional stability in Latin America.
During a recent panel discussion at the Brookings Institution, prominent analysts expressed deep concerns about the Trump administration’s approach. Vanda Felbab-Brown, director of the initiative on nonstate armed actors, characterized the operation as reflecting a “19th-century imperialist Yankee domination agenda” that fails to address Venezuela’s fundamental governance challenges. She warned of the high potential for either prolonged stagnation or explosive violence across the country as a consequence of such unilateral action.
Thomas Wright, a senior fellow in foreign policy, condemned what he described as the operation’s “extractive domination element,” arguing that it represents a departure from normative diplomatic principles. The criticism extended to legal dimensions, with fellow expert Scott R. Anderson highlighting the contentious nature of the intervention under international law and its destabilizing effect on global order.
The domestic response has included legislative pushback, with the US Senate advancing a War Powers Resolution by January 8th to limit further military involvement. Parallel concerns were echoed at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, where Deputy Director of the Americas Program Christopher Hernandez-Roy criticized the coercive methodology as essentially forcing compliance through threat of additional military action.
Energy and geopolitics specialist Clayton Seigle emphasized that political stability remains the paramount requirement for Venezuela’s future, noting that recent events have failed to clarify the outlook for genuine stability. The administration’s statements, including President Trump’s assertion that Washington would “run” the country if necessary and Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s outline of US-imposed stability phases, have further fueled debates about the true motives behind the intervention.