标签： South America

Venezuela has been thrust into a period of profound uncertainty following the dramatic capture of President Nicolás Maduro by United States military forces. The operation, authorized by President Donald Trump and executed in Caracas early Saturday, represents a dramatic escalation in the longstanding tensions between the two nations.

The immediate aftermath in the capital was a study in contrasts. While some citizens emerged to celebrate, expressing gratitude to the U.S. for removing a leader they view as illegitimate, staunch government loyalists mounted counter-protests. Caracas Mayor Carmen Meléndez decried the action as an outright ‘kidnapping,’ rallying supporters who demand Maduro’s immediate release.

The U.S. justification for the unprecedented military incursion centers on accusations that Maduro presides over a ‘narco-terrorist’ regime. These claims, which Maduro has consistently denied, form the basis for his extradition to New York City to face formal drug trafficking and weapons charges. In the power vacuum, President Trump has declared the U.S. will temporarily administer the nation and manage its vast oil reserves until a permanent government can be established.

Yet, beneath the surface of celebration for many, deep-seated fear and skepticism persist. Interviews with citizens reveal widespread apprehension about the future. Many, like a woman identified only as ‘Dina’ for her safety, express cautious hope for economic investment but profound distrust in U.S. political consistency. The threat of violence remains palpable; reports indicate armed pro-government paramilitary groups, known as colectivos, continue to patrol streets, intimidating citizens.

The situation is further complicated by the enduring influence of powerful Maduro allies within the government structure, creating fears of internal instability. For the nearly eight million Venezuelans living in exile, Maduro’s capture is a watershed moment, though they recognize that healing the nation’s profound wounds—including addressing those who are missing, imprisoned, or dead—will be a long and arduous process.

During an extended press briefing addressing the controversial U.S. military operation targeting Venezuelan leadership, President Donald Trump made several statistically questionable assertions regarding both the Venezuela raid and domestic National Guard deployments.

Regarding the Venezuela maritime intervention, Trump asserted that each drug vessel neutralized by U.S. forces “kills on average 25,000 people” and that eliminating these vessels saves equivalent American lives. However, official data from the CDC’s National Vital Statistics System reveals that annual drug overdose fatalities reached approximately 76,516 during the 12-month period ending April 2025—already representing a 24.5% decrease from previous figures. Given that U.S. forces have engaged 35 vessels since operations commenced in September, Trump’s calculation would suggest 875,000 lives saved—a figure dramatically exceeding actual overdose mortality rates.

Furthermore, operational analysis indicates these maritime strikes primarily target Caribbean routes, while the predominant opioid threat—fentanyl responsible for 65.1% of overdose deaths—typically enters via land routes from Mexico using Chinese and Indian precursor chemicals.

On domestic security, Trump incorrectly claimed Washington D.C. had experienced no homicides “in six, seven months” following National Guard deployment. Metropolitan Police Department statistics document 59 homicides during this period, including a November terrorist attack that killed one National Guard member and injured another. While homicides decreased from 2024’s 126 to 97 in 2025, 29 occurred after the August deployment.

Regarding Chicago and Los Angeles deployments, Trump asserted crime reduction successes despite legal constraints that prevented street deployment in Chicago. In Los Angeles, initial deployments of 4,000 Guard members and 700 Marines were gradually reduced to several hundred before court orders mandated returning control to California Governor Gavin Newsom, culminating in the Ninth Circuit’s Wednesday ruling demanding administration compliance.

In an outpouring of emotion, Venezuelan-Americans in South Florida erupted in celebration following news of a US operation targeting President Nicolás Maduro. The community in Doral, Florida—often referred to as ‘Doralzuela’ due to its high concentration of Venezuelan expatriates—gathered spontaneously, waving flags and chanting slogans against the Venezuelan leader.

BBC correspondent Bernd Debusmann, reporting from the scene, captured raw reactions from residents who expressed overwhelming joy and relief. ‘I’m so happy,’ one emotional resident told the BBC, echoing sentiments shared by many who fled economic collapse and political repression under Maduro’s administration. The celebratory atmosphere reflected years of pent-up frustration among exiles who have advocated for international intervention.

The development marks a significant escalation in US-Venezuela relations, with Washington taking direct action against a leader it has repeatedly sanctioned and labeled illegitimate. The events in Doral highlight how Venezuela’s political crisis has created deep diasporic communities abroad that remain intensely engaged with developments in their homeland. Many celebrators expressed hope that this operation might lead to democratic restoration in Venezuela, though the ultimate outcome remains uncertain amid complex geopolitical tensions.

Former U.S. President Donald Trump has asserted that American forces conducted military strikes in Venezuela and successfully captured the nation’s sitting president, Nicolás Maduro. The controversial statement, which lacks official confirmation from current U.S. authorities, represents a significant escalation in rhetoric regarding Washington’s approach to the Venezuelan government.

Venezuela has been embroiled in a prolonged political crisis since Maduro’s disputed re-election in 2018, which many nations including the United States deemed illegitimate. The Trump administration maintained a policy of maximum pressure against Maduro’s regime, recognizing opposition leader Juan Guaidó as the legitimate interim president and imposing severe economic sanctions.

This alleged claim of military intervention, if verified, would mark a dramatic turning point in hemispheric relations and international law. However, multiple international news agencies and government channels have not corroborated Trump’s assertion, leaving the validity of the statement in question. Regional security analysts suggest such an operation would require substantial military resources and would likely provoke strong responses from Venezuela’s international allies, including Russia and China.

BUENOS AIRES, Argentina (AP) — Venezuela has been plunged into a profound constitutional crisis following the dramatic capture of President Nicolás Maduro by U.S. military forces. The operation has triggered urgent questions about legitimate leadership and the nation’s political future, creating widespread uncertainty among citizens and officials alike.

In a stunning development, former U.S. President Donald Trump unexpectedly endorsed Maduro’s vice president, Delcy Rodríguez, as a potential successor despite her history of facing U.S. sanctions for undermining Venezuelan democracy. Trump revealed that Rodríguez had engaged in extensive discussions with Secretary of State Marco Rubio, during which she allegedly expressed willingness to cooperate with American objectives.

“She’s essentially willing to do what we think is necessary to make Venezuela great again,” Trump told reporters, simultaneously dismissing opposition leader Maria Corina Machado—the 2024 Nobel Peace Prize laureate—as lacking sufficient support to govern effectively.

Rodríguez responded to these developments with defiant rhetoric on state television, demanding Maduro’s immediate release and condemning the U.S. operation as a flagrant violation of international law. Flanked by senior civilian officials and military commanders, she emphatically declared: “There is only one president in this country, and his name is Nicolás Maduro.”

The situation remains highly fluid with no visible U.S. administration presence in Venezuela. Constitutional provisions requiring a new election within thirty days of presidential absence now face extraordinary complications due to the military intervention and questions about the government’s legitimacy.

Venezuelan military leaders projected unwavering defiance, with Defense Minister Gen. Vladimir Padrino López asserting “They have attacked us but will not break us.” Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello appeared in combat gear, urging citizens to defend national sovereignty against what he characterized as “rats” who would “regret what they did.”

Rodríguez’s complex profile includes strong connections to Wall Street and Republican oil interests, having previously engaged with figures including Blackwater founder Erik Prince and Trump special envoy Richard Grenell. Unlike many Maduro associates facing U.S. criminal indictments, Rodríguez and her brother Jorge—who leads the Maduro-controlled National Assembly—have avoided legal prosecution while maintaining leftist credentials rooted in their father’s tragic death in police custody during the 1970s.

The opposition movement, led by Machado, maintains that retired diplomat Edmundo González—widely believed to have won the disputed 2024 presidential election—should immediately assume constitutional authority. Machado pledged to restore order, free political prisoners, and reclaim democratic governance, asserting readiness to “assert our mandate and take power.”

With military forces traditionally serving as Venezuela’s ultimate political arbiter, Rodríguez faces significant challenges in consolidating authority. Experts emphasize that the resolution will depend heavily on the current state of military capabilities and which officials were detained during the operation.

Venezuelan citizens expressed widespread shock and confusion, with many speculating on social media about possible mistaken identity in Trump’s comments regarding the two prominent female political figures.

The Trump administration’s dramatic seizure of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro has ignited fierce debate among legal scholars and policymakers regarding the legality of aggressive U.S. actions in South America. Maduro was captured during a midnight operation involving U.S. forces in Caracas and transported via warship to face narcoterrorism conspiracy charges in New York—an extraordinary maneuver that legal experts characterize as historically unprecedented.

This development represents the culmination of months of escalating military engagement in the region, including 35 documented boat strikes against alleged drug trafficking vessels resulting in over 115 fatalities since September, alongside multiple seizures of Venezuelan oil tankers. According to former Navy attorney Mark Nevitt, now at Emory University School of Law, the operation lacks any recognizable legal foundation absent an existing extradition treaty.

The administration’s justification hinges on a controversial memorandum obtained by The Associated Press in October, which designates Venezuelan drug cartels as unlawful combatants and frames drug trafficking as an armed conflict requiring military response. This novel interpretation significantly expands presidential war powers without congressional authorization—a constitutional concern compounded by the fact that lawmakers from both parties have grown increasingly uneasy about military actions in Venezuela.

Historical parallels to the 1989 Panama invasion and capture of Manuel Noriega reveal critical distinctions: unlike Panama, where U.S. national security interests were directly threatened by control of the Panama Canal and safety of American citizens, no similar justification exists for Venezuela. While federal courts traditionally defer to executive authority on national security matters, Notre Dame Law School professor Jimmy Gurule emphasizes that “great deference does not mean absolute deference and unfettered authority to do anything.”

Congressional leaders were notified only after operations commenced, prompting bipartisan calls for greater oversight. The Senate prepares to vote on a war powers resolution that would restrict military action against Venezuela without legislative approval. Democratic lawmakers warn that bypassing international law sets dangerous precedents that authoritarian regimes could exploit, potentially undermining global stability and America’s moral authority.

As Secretary of State Marco Rubio acknowledged the impossibility of pre-operation consultations due to its sensitive nature, the administration faces mounting scrutiny over its legal rationale and long-term strategic implications for international relations and constitutional balance of powers.