The US capture of Nicolás Maduro

On 3 January 2026, the United States captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, in a military operation in Caracas. President Trump announced that the US is “going to run the country, until we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition” of power. It is not currently clear to what extent the US will be directly involved in Venezuela’s internal politics.

The UK Government said it was not involved in the operation. However, it said it had long supported a transition of power in Venezuela and that it regarded Mr Maduro as an illegitimate leader because his election in July 2024 was “neither free and fair”.

Legal scholars and politicians have questioned whether the operation was lawful under international law.

Operation Resolve and the capture of Nicolás Maduro

In the early morning of 3 January 2026 the United States conducted a military raid on Caracas, Venezuela’s capital, capturing Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores. As part of a wider military operation called “Operation Resolve”, which also targeted military infrastructure across the country, US special forces transported the two captives to the US warship Iwo Jima, who were then taken to New York.

US Attorney General Pamela Bondi, said that both individuals had “been indicted in the Southern District of New York” and that Mr Maduro had been charged with “Narco-Terrorism Conspiracy, Cocaine Importation Conspiracy, Possession of Machineguns and Destructive Devices, and Conspiracy to Possess Machineguns and Destructive Devices against the United States”.

Venezuelan authorities confirmed that a large part of Mr Maduro’s security team were killed in the military raid, but did not give an exact figure. The Cuban Government announced on Facebook that 32 Cubans “lost their lives in combat” during the operation while “carrying out missions” on behalf of the country’s military, at the request of their Venezuelan counterparts. US President Donald Trump said there were no US casualties.

No other senior figures in the Venezuelan Government appeared to have been targeted in Operation Resolve. On 5 January 2026, Venezuela’s Vice President Delcy Rodriguez was sworn in as interim president, in front of the country’s National Assembly.

US statements on the military operation and next steps

President Trump announced the military operation on social media, saying the “large scale strike” had been “done in conjunction with US Law Enforcement”.

In a later press conference on 3 January Mr Trump said of Venezuela “We are going to run the country, until we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition”, adding “so we don't want to be involved with…having somebody else get in and we have the same situation that we had for the last long period of years”.

The US President cautioned that “we are ready to stage a second and much larger attack if we need to do so” saying “we actually assumed that a second wave would be necessary, but now it's probably not”.

He said that “we want peace, liberty, and justice for the great people of Venezuela”.

Mr Trump also mentioned US involvement in Venezuela’s oil industry, saying “We're going to have our very large United States oil companies, the biggest anywhere in the world, go in, spend billions of dollars, fix the badly broken infrastructure, the oil infrastructure, and start making money for the country”.

US position on the current Venezuelan Government and the opposition

During the 3 January press statement, President Trump said that his Secretary of State Marco Rubio had spoken to Delcy Rodriguez and that “she's essentially willing to do what we think is necessary to make Venezuela great again”.

Shortly after this press statement Ms Rodriguez seemed to reject this assertion saying in a televised address that “we are ready to defend Venezuela” and “we are ready to defend our natural resources”. She also demanded the immediate return of Nicolás Maduro and his wife.

Mr Trump appeared to sharpen his tone against Ms Rodriguez when on 4 January in an interview with the Atlantic Magazine he said: “if she doesn’t do what’s right, she is going to pay a very big price, probably bigger than Maduro”.

On 4 January Marco Rubio appeared to suggest that Mr Trump’s comments about the US running Venezuela were more about the US’s ability to influence the government there, saying “What we are running is the direction that this is going to move moving forward. And that is, we have leverage. This leverage we are using. And we intend to use. We started using already”.

The following day Mr Trump reiterated his comments about the US being in charge of Venezuela. He told reporters “don't ask me who's in charge, because I'll give you an answer, and it'll be very controversial”. Asked “what does that mean?”, the President responded, “it means we're in charge”.

Asked on 3 January if Venezuelan opposition leader and Nobel Peace Prize winner María Corina Machado could run the country, President Trump responded it would be “very tough” for her, saying: “She’s a very nice woman, but she doesn’t have the respect within the country”.

Charges against Maduro

On 5 January the US Department of Justice published an indictment (PDF) setting out the charges and the grounds for prosecution against Nicolás Maduro, his wife Cilia Flores, and four other defendants. These were Nicolás Maduro Guerra, the Venezuelan leader’s son, the current and former Ministers of the Interior, Diosdado Cabello and Ramón Rodríguez Chacín, and Hector Guerrero Flores, an alleged leader of the Tren de Aragua criminal gang.

On 5 January, during their first court hearing in New York, Mr Maduro and Ms Flores both pleaded not guilty to the charges made against them.

Rising tensions between the US and Venezuela in 2025

Operation Resolve came after months of rising tensions between the United States and Venezuela.

Following Mr Maduro’s inauguration as President in January 2025, in the last days of the Biden administration, then Secretary of State Anthony Blinken released a statement saying “Maduro clearly lost the 2024 presidential election and has no right to claim the presidency”. He announced further sanctions on eight people including members of the Venezuelan security forces and political figures. He also said the Department of State was increasing the reward to $25 million for information leading to the arrests and/or convictions of Nicolás Maduro and his Minister of Interior Diosdado Cabello, and introducing a new reward offer of up to $15 million for Maduro’s Defence Minister Vladimir Padrino López.

In August 2025, Marco Rubio announced that he was “doubling the reward for the arrest of dictator Nicolás Maduro to $50 million for violating US narcotics laws”. He went onto say that “Maduro is the head of the vicious Cartel de Los Soles, a narco-terror organization which has taken over Venezuela. Maduro MUST be brought to justice”.

In the same month the US also began a military buildup of warships, fighter jets and armed forces personnel in the Caribbean. This was later named as Operation Southern Spear, whose aim the US said was to target drug trafficking in the Caribbean.

In September 2025, the US launched a series of military strikes against boats in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean it claimed were carrying drugs, principally from Venezuela. According to the Associated Press there were 35 known strikes between September and December which killed at least 115 people.

In October 2025, it was reported that President Trump had issued a memo declaring drug cartels to be unlawful combatants and that said the United States was now in an “armed conflict” with them.

Also in October President Trump said he had authorised the CIA to conduct covert operations inside Venezuela.

In December 2025, the US seized a Venezuelan oil tanker, and President Trump said he was ordering a blockade of all “sanctioned oil tankers” going into and out of Venezuela. It was reported in December that the CIA was behind the drone strike at a docking area believed to have been used by Venezuelan drug cartels.

UK Government Venezuela policy

Following the contested July 2024 presidential elections in Venezuela, the UK Government, along with the other G7 nations, called for the publication of the full detailed results of the election.

In January 2025 the government announced it was imposing sanctions on 15 people “associated with Nicolás Maduro’s contested regime”. Then Foreign Secretary, David Lammy, said while announcing the sanctions that “Nicolás Maduro’s claim to power is fraudulent. The outcome of July’s election was neither free nor fair and his regime does not represent the will of the Venezuelan people”.

In May 2025, in response to a parliamentary question on removing Venezuela’s diplomatic representatives in the UK, the government said “the UK does not accept the legitimacy of the current administration put in place by Nicolás Maduro”, though it maintained “limited engagement with Venezuelan officials where necessary”.

In December 2025, in response to an urgent question on the escalating military attacks by the US against alleged Venezuelan drugs smugglers, Foreign Office Minister Hamish Falconer said that “questions about United States military action in the Caribbean and Pacific are questions for the US”, and that “the UK has not been involved in US strikes in the Caribbean”. Mr Falconer said the government “must be very careful on making assessments” about the legality of such strikes, and that “We, of course, continue to stand by international law”.

UK Government statements on Operation Resolve

The Prime Minister Keir Starmer published a statement on 3 January in response to Operation Resolve, in which he said “The UK has long supported a transition of power in Venezuela. We regarded Maduro as an illegitimate President and we shed no tears about the end of his regime”. He said that the government “will discuss the evolving situation with US counterparts in the days ahead as we seek a safe and peaceful transition to a legitimate government that reflects the will of the Venezuelan people”.

In an interview with the BBC earlier that day Mr Starmer was asked if he thought the military operation broke international law. He responded that:

I've been a lifelong advocate of international law and the importance of compliance with international law.

But I want to ensure that I've got all the facts at my disposal, and we haven't got that at the moment. And we need to get that before we come to a decision about the consequences in relation to the actions that have been taken.

He also stated that “there was no UK involvement in this operation”.

In an urgent statement to the House of Commons on 5 January, Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper said that UK policy on Venezuela “has long been to press for a peaceful transition from authoritarian rule to a democracy that reflects the will of the Venezuelan people, maintains security in the region and is in line with international law”; and “that remains our position and our determined view about what must happen in Venezuela now”.

Ms Cooper said she had spoken with her US counterpart Marco Rubio and in these discussions she “raised the importance of complying with international law, and we will continue to urge all partners to do so at every stage”, adding “It is, of course, for the US to set out the legal basis for its actions”.

The Foreign Secretary said that the UK and its allies “collective immediate focus must be on avoiding any deterioration in Venezuela into further instability, criminality, repression or violence”, and that the “international community must come together to help achieve a peaceful transition to a democratic Government who respect the rights and will of their people”. That requires action, she said, “on the economic crisis, the release of political prisoners, the return of opposition politicians, an end to political repression, respect for human rights, and plans for the holding of free and fair elections”. She urged interim President, Delcy Rodríguez to “take these steps forward, because the people of Venezuela have a right to decide their own future”.

Ms Cooper also told the House that she had spoken that day with Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado and pledged to keep in touch with her in the following weeks.

Reaction by other governments

On 5 January during an emergency session of the UN Security Council on Venezuela, China’s Ambassador to the UN, Sun Lei, said that “China is deeply shocked by and strongly condemns the unilateral, illegal, and bullying acts by the United States”. He said that the US had “seriously violated the principles of sovereign equality, non-interference in internal affairs, peaceful settlement of international disputes, and the prohibition of the use of force in international relations”. Mr Lei also called for the immediate release of Mr Maduro and Ms Flores.

Russia criticised the military operation also. In a press release of a conversation between Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and his Belarussian counterpart, Maxim Ryzhenkov on 3 January, they said they stood “united in resolutely condemning the aggression carried out by the United States against a sovereign state, in violation of international law”. They discussed “the absolute necessity of the immediate release of the legitimate President of Venezuela Nicolas Maduro and his wife, their return to the capital of the country, and the restoration of Nicolas Maduro as head of state”.

On 4 January, Kaja Kallas, the EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs, released a statement on Venezuela supported by all EU member states except Hungary. The statement called for “calm and restraint by all actors, to avoid escalation and to ensure a peaceful solution to the crisis”. It said that the EU “recalls that, under all circumstances, the principles of international law and the UN Charter must be upheld” and that “Members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to uphold those principles”. It added that the EU was in “close contact with the United States, as well as regional and international partners to support and facilitate dialogue with all parties involved, leading to a negotiated, democratic, inclusive and peaceful solution to the crisis, led by Venezuelans”.

International legal concerns

International legal scholars, and political leaders (see above) have questioned whether Operation Resolve was compliant with international law.

The legal arguments have focused in particular on two issues, the general prohibition of the use of force by one nation state against another under the UN Charter, and the doctrine of head of state immunity. The doctrine holds that heads of state are considered immune from legal proceedings by foreign criminal courts for their actions while in office (though this does not shield them from action by their own national courts or international courts if they have committed serious crimes).

Prohibition on the use of force

Article 2(4) of the UN Charter states that “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations”.

There are two exceptions to this general prohibition of force in the UN Charter. Article 51 of the charter enshrines the right to self-defence and allows states individually or collectively to use force in response to an armed attack. Because nations are entitled to take part in collective defence, military action may also be legally justified where a state has requested assistance from another country.

Chapter VII of the UN Charter also permits the UN Security Council to authorise the use of collective force against a threat to international peace and security.

The UK Government has argued that humanitarian intervention can be a lawful basis for military intervention as part of customary international law, though this claim is disputed.

See Commons Library briefing: The legal basis for air strikes against Syrian government targets (April 2018) for more on international law and the use of force.

Commentary from legal scholars on the use of force

Three international law academics writing for the Just Security website have argued that Operation Resolve was “clearly a violation of the prohibition on the use of force in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter”. Professor Marc Weller, writing for the international affairs think tank Chatham House says “it is difficult to conceive of possible legal justifications for transporting Maduro to the US, or for the attacks”.

Commentary from legal scholars on head of state immunity

Under customary international law, heads of state (and other senior state officials) are generally considered to have immunity from prosecution from foreign criminal courts. They can only be prosecuted in their own country or in certain international courts.

The US and the UK have questioned the legitimacy of Maduro’s position as president, but that does not mean he would not be considered as head of state for the purposes of head of state immunity. Two legal scholars writing for the blog of the European Journal of International Law say that “what matters under international law is which entity exercises effective control over the territory”, and “the Maduro administration retained effective control over the territory until his forcible removal”. While they say “one might question whether this is the right position, or whether contemporary international law is too protective of dictators and tyrants”; they argue “nonetheless, under the dominant view of the contemporary law of immunities, Maduro would seem entitled to Head of State immunity before US courts”.

For more on legal arguments on head of state immunity see Commons Library briefing Conflict in Ukraine: A Special Tribunal on the Crime of Aggression (August 2024, see section 2.1).

US position

The United States Government has not released a formal legal position on Operation Resolve.

As mentioned above, US Attorney General Pamela Bondi, has characterised Operation Resolve as a law enforcement action undertaken by the military. Similarly, Marco Rubio has been quoted by US Senator Mike Lee as saying “the kinetic action we saw tonight [3 January] was deployed to protect and defend those executing the arrest warrant”.

The US Ambassador to the UN, Mike Waltz, also referenced the right of a state to self-defence under the UN Charter in an interview on the Venezuelan operation.

US domestic law and precedents for the conviction of other political leaders

According to the US Congressional Research Service, in US law “the fact that the defendant was abducted overseas and brought to the United States for trial… does not deprive the federal court of jurisdiction to try him”.

In December 1989, the US invaded Panama, captured Manuel Noriega the country’s de facto leader, and brought him to the United States to stand trial. He had been indicted in 1988 by a US court on racketeering and drug trafficking charges. Mr Noriega legally challenged the proceedings on the grounds that “his seizure violated international law, that the invasion of Panama was unlawful, that he enjoyed head-of-state immunity, and that due process forbade his prosecution following a forcible extraterritorial capture”. He lost on all counts. He was later convicted and sentenced to 40 years in jail.

For more on US domestic law and state immunity, and how it interacts with international law see Just Security, Head of State Immunity and Maduro on Trial, 6 January 2026.

Next steps

The next court date for the US legal proceedings against Nicolás Maduro has been set for 17 March 2026.