In early January of 2026, the United States carried out a large-scale military strike against Venezuela. This campaign, also known as Operation Absolute Resolve, ordered by President Donald Trump, was a military mission to capture Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife. Following their capture, Maduro was transported to New York City, where he faces federal charges for narco-terrorism and drug trafficking. This operation has sparked widespread international debate. Many argue that the US had no right to interfere at such drastic levels with another sovereign country. Others argue that this action as justified, given that Venezuela has suffered for years under a corrupt government. Essentially, US intervention was inappropriate because not only did it go against international law, but also set a dangerous precedent and may have been motivated by self-interest rather than genuine concern for Venezuelans.

There is no doubt that Venezuela faces governmental problems, including fraudulent elections, economic collapses, and the deprivation of basic necessities such as food and medicine. Although the intentions to interfere may seem positive, the way the United States acted raises major concerns. The Trump Administration justified the operation by stating that the drug trafficking Maduro was involved in was a direct threat to US national security. While the US argued the operation was necessary as an act of self-defense against drug trafficking, this move ignores global rules. The United Nations Human Rights Office says the US’ actions of violent intervention without their approval were in violation of international law. By striking Venezuela without prior congressional authorization, President Trump bypassed not only international law, but congressional oversight, which weakens global rule meant to prevent powerful countries from using force whenever it benefits them.

Venezuela is known for having some of the largest oil reserves in the world. After Maduro was captured, Trump stated that Washington would help “run” Venezuela while Delcy Rodríguez governed under US oversight. Considering the fact that America is attracted to oil like a magnet, he was quick to move major US oil companies into the country. He also allegedly said that Venezuela “stole” its oil industries and assets from the United States. Impractical statements like these make it seem like this operation was primarily for economic gain rather than caring for the citizens of another country.

This action also fits into a larger pattern of aggressive foreign policy. Since 2019 Trump has expressed a desire to control Greenland. He has stated, “One way or another, we are going to have Greenland,” implying that he plans to take the territory from Denmark by force. Greenland does not wish to be under the ownership of the US, but is willing to collaborate on strengthening security as a NATO partner. Despite all of this, diplomacy is not on Trump’s agenda, and instead he is pressuring Denmark. This suggests a transition from partnership towards power-driven expansion.

This action has also taken a serious toll on global affairs. Many Latin American countries see this interference as a return of old patterns of foreign domination, fueling anti-American sentiment. Many European allies of the US have expressed concern for the operation. Although they won’t openly break with the US, the operation has definitely decreased trust. If other major powers start to use military force to remove foreign leaders without international support, then long-standing agreements regarding how disputes should be resolved will be significantly weakened.  

The US strike on Venezuela may have been written off by some as a victory, but it raises important questions about power, sovereignty, and the future of global cooperation. While addressing the crimes Maduro committed is important, doing so through violence undermines the very democratic principles the US claims to defend. Instead of interfering at such drastic levels, the US, including other countries, should work together as international partners to promote peace and address issues in ways that respect the sovereignty of every nation. If the United States truly wishes to support all of this, it must do so through peaceful means, not through impulsive military action.