Introduction
The capture of Nicolás Maduro by the United States marks a turning point in contemporary Venezuelan history. The attack stems from charges presented by the Department of Justice for narcoterrorism, conspiracy to import cocaine, possession of war weapons, and conspiracy to possess destructive devices, all under the justification of a Southern District of New York (SDNY) court order since 2020.
Background on Nicolás Maduro and His Relevance
Nicolás Maduro, the former president of Venezuela, has been a central figure in the country’s political landscape since 2013. His rule has been marked by controversy, allegations of corruption, and human rights abuses. Maduro succeeded Hugo Chávez after his death in 2013, continuing the socialist policies of the late leader. His presidency has been marred by economic turmoil, hyperinflation, and widespread shortages of food and medicine.
Key Figures in the Venezuelan Political Landscape
- María Corina Machado: A prominent opposition leader and former member of the National Assembly, Machado has been a vocal critic of Maduro’s government. She played a significant role in organizing protests and advocating for international intervention.
- Edmundo González: A politician who claimed victory in the disputed July 28, 2024 elections, González has been recognized by some democratic countries as the legitimate president of Venezuela.
- Delcy Rodríguez: As the vice president under Maduro, she would assume the presidency if Maduro’s absence is deemed “absolute” under Article 233 of the Venezuelan Constitution.
- Vladimir Padrino: The defense minister who denounced the attack as a violation of Venezuela’s sovereignty.
- Diosdado Cabello: The interior minister who appeared alongside paramilitary groups, raising concerns about potential internal violence.
Legal and Political Implications of the U.S. Intervention
The U.S. military operation raises fundamental questions in international law. While the Venezuelan regime views it as an act of war and a breach of national sovereignty, the U.S. justifies it as the enforcement of a judicial order related to transnational crimes, presenting the use of force as a legitimate means to protect federal officers.
The tension between sovereignty and international security lies at the heart of this crisis: can a state intervene militarily to capture another state’s leader accused of narcoterrorism? The answer, though not explicitly stated in treaties, is found in political practice and the force of circumstances.
Who Will Govern Venezuela?
The scenario’s complexity is at its peak. On one hand, the argument is that Maduro committed electoral fraud in the July 28, 2024 elections, reversing their outcome. Edmundo González, supported by María Corina Machado and Corina Yoris (though both were disqualified by electoral maneuvers), won the election. This would imply the illegitimacy of Maduro’s government.
On the other hand, Maduro’s inauguration on January 10, 2025, following his capture, creates an unprecedented situation that would attempt to fall under Article 233 of the Venezuelan Constitution. This article stipulates that absolute absence of the president should be filled by the vice president—in this case, Delcy Rodríguez—implying political continuity.
Regional Impact
The international connotation of the attack on Venezuelan military installations and Maduro’s capture is undeniable. President Trump declared that the U.S. would “govern Venezuela until a peaceful, proper, and just transition” can take place, warning of further attacks if necessary. He also mentioned that the transition would be led by a team comprising Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Pentagon chief Peter Hegseth, in collaboration with the Venezuelan opposition.
Trump’s statements extended to Colombia and Cuba. He warned Colombian President Gustavo Petro to “watch his back,” accusing him of producing cocaine that reaches the U.S. Petro responded by calling the operation an “attack on Latin America’s sovereignty” and warning of a greater humanitarian crisis in Venezuela.
Maduro’s capture not only redefines Venezuelan politics but also reconfigures regional geopolitics, creating tensions between Washington and Bogotá while leaving the fate of Cuba and Nicaragua uncertain.
Transition or Violence: The Dilemma of 2026
The days following Maduro’s capture will be critical. According to the U.S. official narrative, there is no room for negotiation in forcing a democratic transition, though the “manner” could trigger a cycle of persistent violence. Neutralizing paramilitary groups and the potential fracturing of the Bolivarian National Army will determine the outcome.
International pressure is mixed: most democratic governments worldwide support the July 28 election results and recognize González as president. Meanwhile, authoritarian regimes like Cuba and Nicaragua, global powers such as Russia and China, and ideological states like Iran and North Korea back Maduro’s regime.
Democratic factors insist that this is Venezuela’s opportunity for democratic restoration. However, the risk of internal conflicts and a more significant humanitarian crisis remains real. Venezuela’s governance is in uncertain territory, where constitutional legality weakens and the force of facts intertwines with anarchy.
The Unwritten Ending
As Venezuela enters 2026, the future remains utterly uncertain. The Chavista era has ended. There is no written ending, but a certainty: the authoritarian system cannot sustain itself and faces the threat of another definitive U.S. attack. The outcome inevitably involves a rupture, though the levels of violence and extent of the announced protectorate remain undefined.
The question is not if change will occur, but how it will unfold and at what cost. Maduro’s capture opens an unprecedented window for international justice and political transition, but it also exposes Venezuela to risks of violence and fragmentation. The history of Venezuela is being rewritten in real-time, a tragedy that began with the institutional dismantling orchestrated by Hugo Chávez Frías, who used democratic mechanisms against democracy.
