The Capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro
Elizabeth Walen ’28
On the 3rd of January, Nicolás Maduro was captured by the U.S. government and forcibly removed from Venezuela. Since 2013, he has been president and ruled under the United Socialist Party, which has long been accused of presiding over an authoritarian regime. His rule is alleged to consist of electoral fraud, human rights violations, governmental corruption, and extensive economic hardships. The United Nations has implicated that Maduro’s rule has resulted in the fleeing of seven million Venezuelans, as well as thousands of people dying due to extrajudicial executions.
In 2018, a 400-page report was published by the Organization of American States, which detailed the alleged crimes against humanity perpetrated during Maduro’s presidency. It states that he could be “responsible for dozens of murders, thousands of extra-judicial executions, more than 12,000 cases of arbitrary detentions, more than 290 cases of torture, attacks against the judiciary and a ‘state-sanctioned humanitarian crisis’ affecting hundreds of thousands of people.” For many Venezuelans, the removal of Maduro indicated the collapse of a government that had become synonymous with repression. Yet, the manner in which Maduro was removed has brought about international condemnation.
In the early hours of January 3rd, explosions were observed by locals around 2 a.m. as more than 150 U.S. military aircraft began bombing the territory across northern Venezuela to support another aircraft that landed in Caracas. Both Venezuelan and Cuban officials state that more than 80 people were killed during this attack, 32 of whom were members of the Cuban military. During the attack, both Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, were captured.
Maduro and Flores were flown to New York City by U.S. forces and are currently being held at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn. Pam Bondi, current U.S. Attorney General, announced that the two had been charged in the U.S. Southern District of New York on several counts related to narcoterrorism. On the 5th of January, they both pleaded not guilty to the charges in a Manhattan federal court. The Trump administration, as stated on NPR news, says this was a law enforcement operation, referring to Maduro as a fugitive. Analysts argue that this raid and capture of Maduro and his wife violated the UN charter as well as Venezuelan sovereignty.
While the administration has been pushing that this assault was to uphold legal reparations, many, such as Geraldine McKelvia, a senior correspondent at the Guardian, state that Trump’s main motive for Maduro’s capture most likely resides in his long-standing gripe against Venezuela’s control over control for oil. Venezuela holds the world’s largest proven oil reserves, surpassing even Saudi Arabia. For years, U.S. officials, including Donald Trump, have spoken openly about Venezuela’s oil wealth and the desire to open it to U.S. energy companies. This makes the country increasingly vulnerable to geopolitical threats. These attacks by United States troops seem increasingly oriented towards having control over the oil, rather than providing actual beneficial law enforcement.
The reaction among Venezuelans and Venezuelan-Americans alike seems to reflect this tension. For some, the capture of Maduro is seen as liberation from his authoritarian government. Yet, others view this operation as a repeated offense within the U.S. and its foreign policy of militaristic intervention, driven by economic interests yet hidden under the guise of a moral responsibility. This ambivalence has led some analysts to view the operation as part of a broader geopolitical shift. With global tensions rising between major powers, the capture of Maduro may be a sign of a return to a more openly imperialist U.S. military.
Delcy Rodríguez, the vice president of Venezuela, stated in a speech broadcast on state TV that this attack and capture of the president was an “illegal and illegitimate kidnapping.” After the capture, she was promoted to acting president in his absence. Notably, she governs under the Chávez party of Venezuela, which has operated under an anti-imperialism platform and resistance to U.S. intervention. Her apparent compliance with U.S. demands undermines the ideological foundations of her own political movement and raises questions about Venezuela’s sovereignty in the post-Maduro era.
The fall of an authoritarian leader, Nicolás Maduro, may seem to be cause for celebration, yet it is still up for debate as to whether or not the operation violated international treaties. Not only is there a watchful eye on what the United States involvement entails, but also a close watch to see how power will be exercised in Venezuela under the interim government. In the weeks ahead, leading up to March 17, which is the next court date for Maduro and his wife, the facts about the case will become clearer.