Donald Trump's presidency, initially marked by pledges to end "forever wars" and abandon "nation-building" in favor of reviving the US economy through an "America first" narrative, has taken a starkly interventionist turn with the recent military operation in Venezuela. Despite his campaign rhetoric, Trump has demonstrated a willingness to resort to military force, as evidenced by his support for Israel's actions in Gaza, the bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities, and most prominently, the dramatic abduction of Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro.

The US military operation to seize Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, on Saturday was described by Trump as "spectacular" and "an assault not seen since World War II." It involved 150 aircraft targeting Venezuelan air defenses and military troops arriving in helicopters, resulting in an estimated 40 casualties, including military personnel and civilians, though no American deaths were reported. Maduro and Flores were subsequently transported to a Brooklyn federal jail to face charges of drug trafficking and "narco-terrorism" conspiracy. Trump had previously targeted Maduro, offering a $50 million bounty for his capture, blockading Venezuelan ports, and accusing him of drug involvement.

The Trump administration's justification for this unprecedented intervention centered on allegations of drug trafficking, claiming that Maduro was complicit in deluging the US with fentanyl and that Venezuela posed a clear and present danger. However, these claims have been widely disputed. International law experts, such as Yale professor Oona Hathaway, stated that there was no plausible justification under the UN charter for the US use of force, arguing that using drug trafficking as a basis for invasion eradicates limits on military action. Critics highlighted the lack of evidence tying Maduro directly to narcotics trafficking into the US, noting that most fentanyl originates from Mexico via China. Furthermore, Venezuela never threatened to attack the US, making self-defense claims untenable, and no US personnel were at risk to justify the intervention under the US Constitution's commander-in-chief clause.

In the immediate aftermath of Maduro's capture, Venezuela's Supreme Court confirmed hardline socialist Vice President Delcy Rodríguez as the interim leader. Rodríguez, a political veteran who served as Maduro’s vice-president and oil minister, initially struck a defiant tone, lambasting the US, pledging fealty to Maduro, and condemning his abduction as "an atrocity that violates international law." She asserted Venezuela's independence, stating, "Never again will we be slaves, never again will we be a colony of any empire." Despite her historical loyalty to Maduro and the Chavismo movement, the Trump administration viewed her as a potential business partner, with Trump himself expressing a preference for working with Rodríguez over opposition leader María Corina Machado, believing Rodríguez would "do what we think is necessary to make Venezuela great again."

A central, and highly contentious, focus of Trump's justification shifted to Venezuela's vast oil reserves. He repeatedly claimed that Venezuela had "stolen" oil and land from the US, asserting that American talent and drive built the industry before it was illicitly taken by the socialist regime. Legal scholars, however, refute these claims, explaining that US companies held exploration concessions, not permanent ownership, and that Venezuela nationalized its oil industry in 1976 under Carlos Andrés Pérez, a policy expanded by Hugo Chávez in 2007. While some US companies like ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips left and sought international arbitration for compensation, others like Chevron remained. Venezuela's oil industry, despite holding the world's largest reserves, is currently a marginal player due to years of mismanagement, corruption, and US sanctions, requiring significant investment and a decade to recover potential output.

The international community reacted with division and discomfort to Trump's actions. While some of Trump's closer ideological allies in Europe, such as Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, deemed the operation a "defensive intervention," many European leaders, including the EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas, emphasized the necessity of upholding international law and the UN charter. Countries like Spain and France, through its foreign minister Jean-Noël Barrot, explicitly criticized the US operation as a breach of international law and the principle of non-use of force. Others, like the Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, acknowledged Maduro's authoritarian rule but sidestepped direct condemnation of the US methods, focusing instead on the hope for a democratic transition in Venezuela, though Trump's rejection of opposition figure María Corina Machado proved awkward for them.

Domestically, Trump's intervention sparked a heated debate. Congressional Democrats, led by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, immediately called for greater oversight and legislative action, with plans to force a vote on a War Powers Act bill to block further military action without congressional approval. They dismissed Trump's claims of a mere crime-fighting operation, characterizing it as an "act of war" involving thousands of troops and significant military assets. Republicans, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Senator Tom Cotton, defended Trump's actions, citing presidential authority to act against imminent threats and drawing analogies to past interventions like the capture of Manuel Noriega in Panama. However, intelligence committee Democrats, like Rep. Jim Himes, expressed concern over the lack of briefings, stating that the law requires Congress to be informed of such classified operations.

The capture of Maduro carries significant and worrisome implications. The future stability of Venezuela remains uncertain, with potential for internal clashes and an expanded US intervention. Trump's declaration that the US would "run" Venezuela temporarily, and his suggestions of opening the oil sector to US corporations, indicate a broader agenda beyond just putting Maduro on trial. This intervention also raised fears of a precedent for similar actions elsewhere, particularly in Iran, where Trump had previously warned of military action amidst an uprising. Critics argued that the intervention cemented a new world order dominated by the self-interest of "great powers," where international law is increasingly disregarded, and highlighted the failures of multilateralism and international courts to address long-standing issues in Venezuela. The US Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, even explicitly threatened Cuba, stating, "If I were them, I would be a little worried."