Former US President Donald Trump has dramatically escalated his foreign policy approach, authorising a military operation that seized Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro from Caracas. The action, followed by a news conference at Mar-a-Lago, Florida on 3 January 2026, marks a stark departure from his prior pledges to end "forever wars".
From Campaign Rhetoric to Military Intervention
Throughout his campaigns, Trump championed an "America First" doctrine, vowing to halt foreign nation-building and revive the US economy. However, his recent actions tell a different story. The capture of Maduro, coupled with full support for Israel's actions in Gaza and strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, reveals a leader as willing as his predecessors to use military force.
Trump had long targeted Maduro's regime, issuing a $50 million bounty for his capture and imposing a naval blockade on Venezuelan oil. Yet, the audacious move to physically abduct a sitting head of state shocked many. Maduro now faces US charges of drug trafficking and "narco-terrorism," accusations the Trump administration has yet to substantiate with public evidence.
Questionable Justifications and International Law
The legal basis for the intervention appears deeply flawed. International law provisions for self-defence do not apply, as Venezuela never threatened, let alone attacked, the United States. Trump's claim that his constitutional duty as Commander-in-Chief compelled him to protect American personnel rings hollow, given no US personnel were at immediate risk in Venezuela.
Central to Trump's narrative is the claim that Maduro's government flooded the US with deadly fentanyl. Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) shows synthetic opioid overdose deaths rose from 782 in 2000 to 72,776 in 2023, falling to an estimated 47,735 in 2024. However, the US government itself acknowledges that virtually all fentanyl enters via Mexico, using precursors from China. Trump's additional allegations—linking Maduro to the Tren de Aragua gang and claiming Venezuela "stole" US oil assets—are presented without proof and ignore historical context of the oil industry's nationalisation.
Uncertain Aftermath and a Wider Danger
The consequences of this gambit are dangerously unpredictable for two primary reasons. First, the situation within Venezuela remains volatile. An interim president, Delcy Rodríguez, is in place, and state institutions stand. However, public protests could spiral into violent clashes. While opposition leader and 2025 Nobel Peace Prize laureate María Corina Machado hailed an "hour of freedom," Trump has dismissed her capacity to govern and announced the US will temporarily "run" Venezuela, suggesting ambitions beyond a simple trial.
Second, the success in Venezuela may embolden Trump regarding Iran, where the government faces internal unrest. Trump has warned he is "locked and loaded" if the regime cracks down on protesters. An intervention in Iran would carry far greater regional and global risks than the Venezuelan operation. As Professor Rajan Menon notes, Trump is "nothing if not unpredictable," and the world now watches to see if this act of regime change becomes a template.
