DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Trump won’t rule out war with Venezuela

"He knows exactly what I want," Trump told NBC News on Thursday, referencing Nicolas Maduro. "He knows better than anybody."

President Donald Trump remains open to war with Venezuela, he told NBC News in a phone interview Thursday, even as a majority of Americans oppose military action against the South American country led by longtime strongman Nicolas Maduro.

But Trump declined to get into specifics when asked what his ultimate goals were for Caracas.

“He knows exactly what I want,” Trump told NBC News, referencing Maduro. “He knows better than anybody.”

The president has applied more pressure on Venezuela in recent days, on Tuesday announcing a blockade against the country on Truth Social and also describing plans to classify Maduro’s government as a foreign terrorist organization. In early December, U.S. officials seized a Venezuelan oil tanker — “the largest one ever seized actually,” Trump said at the time — over its illicit transport of oil.

Trump also ordered the closure of Venezuelan airspace in late November, amid a U.S. military buildup in the region.

As for full-scale war?

“I don’t rule it out, no,” he told NBC News.

The president told POLITICO’s Dasha Burns in an interview last week that Maduro’s “days are numbered” and added, “I wouldn’t say that one way or the other” when asked if American troops could hit the ground in Venezuela.

But the vast majority of Americans are opposed to an invasion. Sixty-three percent of respondents told a Quinnipiac poll released this week that they are against military action inside the country. And 53 percent oppose the administration’s current strategy of using military strikes to kill suspected drug traffickers on boats.

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/12/19/trump-war-with-venezuela-00699766

House rejects limits on Trump’s military actions against Venezuela

WASHINGTON — The House on Wednesday rejected two measures aimed at stopping President Donald Trump from carrying out additional strikes on suspected drug boats or attacking Venezuela without congressional approval as lawmakers remained divided over the administration’s military actions in South America.

The votes — 210-216 for the drug boat measure and 211-213 for the Venezuela resolution — marked the latest attempt by mostly Democrats and a handful of Republicans to assert Congress’ constitutional authority to declare war after two recent failed efforts in the Senate.

The flurry of congressional activity comes as the Trump administration escalates its pressure campaign against Venezuela, seizing an oil tanker carrying Venezuelan oil, ordering a blockade of sanctioned oil tankers into and out of the country and continuing to attack boats suspected of smuggling drugs.

Trump warned on social media Tuesday that the massive buildup of military assets near Venezuela — the largest in decades — “will only get bigger, and the shock to them will be like nothing they have ever seen before.”

Alarmed lawmakers on Wednesday said it was imperative for Congress to weigh in as Trump threatens land strikes inside Venezuela and uses the military to bomb alleged drug-trafficking boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific, many near Venezuela.

The Constitution gives Congress, not the president, the authority to declare war, and the 1973 War Powers Resolution requires the president to seek approval from Congress before introducing armed forces “into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances.”

Democratic Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts, who introduced the measure prohibiting military action against Venezuela without congressional authorization, said service members were already being put at risk.

“American troops take an oath to protect and defend this country — it is our duty in Congress to debate and vote before they are put into harm’s way,” said McGovern. “Right now, by placing U.S. military assets off the coast of Venezuela, this administration has them in harm’s way.”

White House chief of staff Susie Wiles conceded in an interview published Tuesday that “activity on land” in Venezuela would need congressional authorization. But the Trump administration has suggested it does not need lawmaker approval for the boat strikes because the vessels are mostly being hit by drones far from U.S. naval forces.

Lawmakers this week received several classified briefings on the boat bombing campaign, which has killed at least 99 people in 26 attacks. Democrats are continuing to push for the public release of unedited videos showing the initial Sept. 2 strike and a controversial follow-up strike that killed two survivors.

Rep. Mike Rogers of Alabama, the Republican chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, expressed support Wednesday for the operation targeting drug boats and said Trump was acting “decisively and lawfully” within his authority as commander-in-chief to combat cartels.

“These strikes are lawful under U.S. law and international laws and all actions are in compliance with the law of armed conflict,” he said. “But most importantly, these strikes have dramatically reduced drug smuggling operations.”

Rep. Gregory Meeks of New York, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, left Tuesday’s briefing questioning Trump’s motivations regarding Venezuela.

“It doesn’t seem to be just about narcotics trafficking,” Meeks said. “So if this is about regime change, it seems to me that the administration should say that’s what it is and should come to Congress to ask for that authorization, which has not taken place.”

Meeks led the resolution to remove U.S. troops “from hostilities with any presidentially designated terrorist organization in the Western Hemisphere” without congressional authorization.

Republican Brian Mast of Florida, the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and an Army combat veteran, argued against both resolutions Wednesday, saying they would tie the president’s hands. He echoed the Trump administration’s contention that Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro is a narco-terrorist who is poisoning Americans.

But Republican Thomas Massie of Kentucky, a co-sponsor of the resolution requiring congressional approval for military action in Venezuela, cast doubt on the administration’s stated focus on drugs — “this is about oil and regime change,” he said.

He urged fellow lawmakers to demand a say over how the president deploys the military.

“All we’re voting on is a war powers resolution that strengthens the fabric of our republic by reasserting the plain and simple language in the Constitution that Congress must decide questions of war,” he said.

https://www.stripes.com/theaters/us...-military-action-venezuela-20127592.html

I think the key being ignored is what do the people of Venezuela think? I know they didn't vote for the guy in a recent election rigged election.

If the people think he is a swell guy, so be it.

I still embargo ships sending oil to bad actors around the world and still blow drug runners out of the water. Yes, even if it takes a 2nd strike.

That "second strike" were survivors after the boat was struck. That's a war crime. And I think most Americans have heard enough about "rigged elections".

Who said he was a swell guy? Is Putin a "swell guy"? How about Kim Kim Jong-il? Do you have any idea how many not so "swell guys" I could list leading nations around the world? Trump just picked the weakest target with the most oil. Like the school yard bully that he is. He calls those other not so swell guys strong and great leaders. You need to pay closer attention.

You sound just like the people who were justifying the war in Iraq after finding out the actual cause stated for war, WMD was proven to be wrong. "Well sure he didn't have any WMD but Saddam Hussein was a bad guy." Just another excuse to justify interfering with other countries and aggression by the U.S.

So you are for the U.S forcing regime changes? You are for overthrowing foreign governments? You now believe a president can simply claim people are drug runners and use that as an excuse to kill them? Can you show me anywhere, at any time smuggling drugs carried the death penalty according to our laws? If you can identify where these boats are, the Coast Guard can stop, search and arrest any drug runners. Murdering people based on accusations is a terrible thing to endorse.

Unless you have forgotten, in the U.S. people are presumed innocent until proven guilty and then sentenced. Not simply accused of a crime and then sentenced to death. Let me guess. Since these are not Americans on our own shores and they some of the "less than people" that makes all of this somehow okay....

Still whining and crying for drug dealers I see!!!

Is that all you have to try and subvert using legal methods of prosecuting and punishing them? Is that your excuse why it's okay to kill people based on accusations alone? That's some prety weak sauce right there. You obviously missed this part so I'll put in bold to help you out this time...................


Sure sounds like I'm on their side huh?

I'm on the side of following the law to arrest and punish drug smugglers. You're on the side of criminality. When you are engaged in killing people without due process, you are no less a criminal than they are.

The only people whining and crying is those who are carrying on about why it's okay to murder people with no trial. I'm arguing for what this country has always stood for up until now be it Republcans or Democrats in charge of our country.

But please keep blaming me for upholding the legal process while you promote abandoning it.

And BTW- If people were out trying to make excuses why it's okay to murder you or your loved ones without due process, I'd be making the same argument and telling others how wrong it is too. I don't pick and choose who you follow the law for and who you don't.

I am tired of the left protecting criminals. I have 0 sympathy for criminals.

You do realize the way we determine who criminals are is through the judicial system and a trial correct? I'm not for protecting criminals either. What I'm for is the way our system has always worked. Only those who are convicted have been found to be criminals. Everyone else is arrested and facing criminal charges until then.

What you are proposing has nothing to do with protecting criminals either. What you propose is all we have to do is claim someone is a criminal and that gives us the right to kill them. Do you have any idea how insane that sounds?

Our government is at its best when it protects it's people. Throw the illegals out and kill the drug dealers poisoning our children. I do not care about your bleeding heart. Treat criminals like Israel treats Hamas.

Still sticking up for the wrong people I see. What is it with you and drug dealers, free loaders, and thief's?

Laws of war apply to uniformed personnel.

As for rigged, I found this interesting.
https://headlineusa.com/fulton-coun...tentially-unlawful-315k-ballots-in-2020/

And you still defend a guy that let a MAJOR reason for all the drugs in America go with a pardon..

Don't act like you and your GUY are innocent.

You forgot pedos. He wants child-age sex dolls for pedos.

How is applying the law, promoting they be arrested and prosecuted sticking up for anyone? What the hell is wrong with you?


Who declared war against Venezuela? What the hell are you talking about?


And trump actually called Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and said, ""All I want to do is this: I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have, because we won the state."

"And if we could just go over some of the numbers, I think it's pretty clear that we won... we won very substantially. You even see it by rally size, frankly, we'd be getting 25-, 30,000 people a rally and the competition would get less than one hundred people. And it never made sense."

"And there's nothing wrong with saying that, you know, that you've recalculated."

https://www.gpb.org/news/2021/01/04...side-trumps-call-steal-georgias-election

But none of that seemed to bother you at the time. We have a president who blatantly asked the Georgia Secretary of State to rig an election for him and he was rewarded for it by now being our president. Did you forget about that?

There are millions upon millions of Americans who work full time getting government benefits. are they the "freeloaders" you're speaking of? When did I ever stick up for thieves?

Here is what I stick up for......................

Math. 25: 31-46

31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:

32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:

33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?

38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?

39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:

43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal........................

Go get you some Jesus Peen. It sounds like you may have gotten lost somewhere along the way.

I'm willing to bet that all of Epstein's victims wish he had been using child sex dolls instead. By your logic you would prefer they use young girls instead of sex dolls. Well you got your wish and you get it every day somewhere in our country. Job well done FATE.

Israel already treated innocent women and children like Hamas.

You mean kill people "accused" of being drug dealers. And in your rage you seem to have forgotten we're discussing drug smugglers, not drug dealers. Following the law has nothing to do with having a bleeding heart. It's just a label you use to excuse murdering people that haven't been proven guilty of anything. And then you trumpians get angry when people call you fascists. When you are promoting exactly what fascists do. They use accusations as grounds to exterminate people.

If he does it without the approval of congress it’s illegal. Not that he cares but the soldiers carrying out illegal orders will eventually be prosecuted.

Are unborn children declared guilty then by your crazy logic?

Nice try switching it up. Look squirrel! lol pffft MAGAts

The unborn are the most innocent victims there can be.

You were the one claiming a war crime. I was pointing out that non-uniformed personnel aren't covered under war crime acts.

Laws of the sea dictate all vessels in international waters must be flagged. If not they are not covered by the laws of the flagged nation or international treaty and can be treated as pirate vessels.

Which has nothing to do with the topic but since you asked.

I am against abortion. My daughter was born when I was 19. Abortion was a legal option. But it's never an option I nor her mother ever considered because it's against my beliefs.

Now would you like to address the topic? Or are you going to going to tap out again by addressing my post with another question unrelated to the topic at hand?

What law covers blowing up vessels and kill people because you accuse them of being a drug smuggler?

Trump says the U.S. took out a 'big facility' in Venezuela amid strikes on alleged drug boats

The president did not provide details about the apparent strike, which NBC News has not independently confirmed.

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump said in an interview with WABC radio in New York that the U.S. had “knocked out” a Venezuelan facility, a move that would be a major escalation in U.S. military strikes to counter alleged drug-trafficking by the South American country.

The apparent attack follows months of U.S. military pressure, including dozens of strikes on boats in international waters. The White House has claimed that the boats carried drugs, though officials have not provided evidence.

In the short phone interview on Friday, Trump responded to a comment about Venezuela by touting the administration's attacks on alleged drug boats before referring to a strike on a "big plant or big facility" that he said took place two nights earlier.

"We just knocked out — I don't know if you read or you saw — they have a big plant or big facility where they send the, you know, where the ships come from," Trump said in the interview. "Two nights ago we knocked that out. So we hit them very hard."

Trump did not provide further details about the apparent attack on the facility, which if correct would be the first known land strike in the U.S. counternarcotics efforts against Venezuela. NBC News has not independently confirmed the strike. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the president's remarks.

The administration has ramped up pressure on Venezuela in recent months. In October, Trump confirmed that he had authorized the CIA to take unspecified action in Venezuela, an unusual acknowledgement about covert action. The president told White House reporters that he took the action because the country "emptied their prisons into the United States of America," a frequent accusation he has made without providing evidence, and also because of narcotics trafficking.

In a December phone interview with NBC News, Trump declined to rule out a war with Venezuela. Days earlier, he ordered a blockade of "sanctioned oil tankers" to and from the country and the military seized an oil tanker off of Venezuela's coast.

In the interview with WABC radio, the station's owner, John Catsimatidis, argued that "Venezuela is going to provide a lot more oil to the United States of America if Maduro leaves," referring to Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro.

"Well, it's about a lot of things," Trump said. "It's about that. It's about, you know, they took our oil, they took it, and they also sent millions of people in there from jails into our country, from jail, some of the worst people on Earth."

Trump then went on to talk about drug trafficking, which the administration has consistently pointed to as the rationale behind the boat strikes.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/na...venezuela-facility-drug-boats-rcna251329

Does anyone speak Trumpanese that can translate this part for me?....

None.

US performs large scale strike on Venezuela. Maduro and wife captured.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...Venezuela-speculation-US-airstrikes.html

All these Trump and Maga Fanboys would be frothing at the mouth if Biden had done this.

Instead, they'll get told what to think by the right-wing media and then spew it out here again.

The SOB took us to war for nothing. Impeach him now.

U.S. Captures Maduro Following Chinese Envoy Meeting
Trump-directed operation after Venezuela-China talks strains U.S.-China relations
By Kim Eun-joong
Published 2026.01.03. 20:48
Updated 2026.01.03. 22:17
Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro meets with a delegation dispatched by Chinese President Xi Jinping and takes a commemorative photo at the Presidential Palace in Caracas. /X (formerly Twitter)
Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro meets with a delegation dispatched by Chinese President Xi Jinping and takes a commemorative photo at the Presidential Palace in Caracas. /X (formerly Twitter)
The U.S. government conducted a ground attack on Venezuela on the 3rd, capturing and transporting President Nicolás Maduro. The attack reportedly occurred shortly after Maduro met with a special envoy sent by Chinese President Xi Jinping. Following Trump’s declaration of a “war on drugs,” the U.S. intensified military pressure on Maduro, while China and Russia opposed these actions through the United Nations. The operation was directed by Trump from Mar-a-Lago in Florida and is expected to significantly impact U.S.-China relations, which had agreed to a temporary ceasefire during the October Busan talks last year. Trump is scheduled to visit China in April upon Xi’s invitation.

According to Venezuelan local media and Maduro’s social media channels, Maduro met with a Chinese delegation at the Miraflores Presidential Palace hours before the airstrike. The delegation included Lan Hu, Venezuela’s Chinese ambassador, Liu Bo, Director-General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for Latin America and the Caribbean, [censored] Hao, Deputy Director-General of the same department, and Liu Zhen, a regional official. In a video, Maduro welcomed them with the phrase, “Happy New Year,” and while holding a Chinese diplomat’s hand, said, “We met 20 years ago when President Hu Jintao was in power,” “It’s impressive that you’ve become a director-general now,” and “Time truly flies.” From Venezuela, Vice President Delcy Rodríguez and Foreign Minister Iván Gil attended the meeting.

The talks reaffirmed China’s support for Maduro’s regime amid escalating U.S. tensions and reviewed over 600 existing bilateral agreements. China is Venezuela’s largest crude oil importer and has invested approximately 67 billion dollars (around 97 trillion Korean won) in infrastructure projects in Venezuela since 2007. Senior Chinese Communist Party officials reportedly participated in the meeting. The U.S. airstrike, which captured Maduro shortly after the talks, is expected to create significant complications in bilateral relations. Laura Loomer, a MAGA (Make America Great Again) influencer and close associate of Trump, posted on X (formerly Twitter) after the attack: “The operation began in the early hours of the 3rd, right after Maduro and Chinese officials concluded their meeting at the presidential palace in Caracas,” and “Chinese officials are reportedly still staying in Caracas.”

Yes, the U.S. just executed a brilliant military operation against the 50th ranked military on the planet. I'm sure that commands respect and strikes fear into nations like China and Russia.

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Yes - a $1 Trillion military budget executing against a nation with a military budget of 4% of that.

At least the stooge with the Pom Poms didn't disappoint and showed up to try to support this insanity.

US colonizes Mars...

Pit: "Pffft. Big deal. There are six other planets; have you seen the size of Saturn? The Russians will probably snatch Saturn right from under that pedo's nose. Besides, there's an entire solar system out there. Short-sighted nothing burger. Oh yeah... January 6th."

That one rich dude on ketamine is trying to colonize Mars, not the U.S. Are you having trouble staying on topic today?

I wonder if anyone can explain why trump pardons the former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernández in December 2025, after Hernández was convicted of smuggling over 400 tons of cocaine into the U.S. Hernández had been sentenced to 45 years in prison. But then used a military operation to arrest Maduro?

Does trump have a list of his favorite drug dealers or something? One gets a pardon and one gets a military operation used against him in order to arrest him.

Things sure are strange in Trumplandia.

I guess after years of trying to use Trump derangement syndrome as a way to deflect from having a serious conversation about his many flaws.... TDS is a real thing. Maga has it real bad.

Defect deflect deflect.

China Slams US ‘Hegemonic Acts’ After Strikes on Venezuela
Bloomberg News
Sat, January 3, 2026 at 10:54 AM EST 3 min read



(Bloomberg) -- China said it’s “deeply shocked” by the US’s military strikes on Venezuela and its capture of President Nicolas Maduro.

China “strongly condemns the US’s blatant use of force against a sovereign state and action against its president,” a Foreign Ministry spokesperson said in a statement late Saturday. “Such hegemonic acts of the US seriously violate international law and Venezuela’s sovereignty, and threaten peace and security in Latin America and the Caribbean region. China firmly opposes it.”




Sinkholes and Quake-Hit Roads Expose Japan’s Infrastructure Emergency

China — the biggest buyer of oil from the South American country, as well as its largest creditor — is the latest in a string of global leftist nations including Brazil, Russia, Colombia, Mexico and Cuba that have denounced the US military action against Venezuela. In the run-up to Saturday’s strike, Beijing had offered its support to the Maduro regime following months of growing pressure from the Trump administration.

“We call on the US to abide by international law and the purposes and principles of the UN Charter, and stop violating other countries’ sovereignty and security,” the ministry in Beijing said.

WATCH: President Nicolás Maduro has been charged in the US after he was captured and flown out of Venezuela. Bloomberg’s Derek Wallbank explains.Source: Bloomberg
On Friday, Maduro received a high-level Chinese delegation in Caracas on Friday, including Special Representative of the Chinese Government on Latin American Affairs Qiu Xiaoqi — one of the Venezuelan leader’s last publicly known meetings before the US strikes and his capture. It is unclear if the diplomats remained in the country by the time of the attack.


Earlier Saturday, China’s Foreign Ministry and the Chinese Embassy in Venezuela advised citizens to temporarily avoid traveling to the South American nation, according to a post on Wechat.

Last month, Chinese Foreign Minister [censored] Yi told his Venezuelan counterpart Yvan Gil that Beijing opposes “unilateral bullying” and supports all countries in safeguarding their sovereignty and national dignity. While [censored] did not name the US directly, the remarks came after President Donald Trump ordered a blockade of sanctioned oil tankers going in and out of Venezuela.

[censored] said then that Venezuela has the right to develop mutually beneficial cooperation with other countries, and that China believes the international community supports Venezuela’s position.

Chinese refiners are the biggest buyers of Venezuelan crude. Officially, China hasn’t taken the South American country’s crude since March, but third-party and ship-tracking data indicate flows to the Asian nation remained robust last year.

The independent refiners, known as teapots, are key buyers of Merey oil from Venezuela, a heavy crude that’s typically used to make bitumen to pave roads. Merey is offered at a steep discount to comparable grades, making it attractive for the processors grappling with razor-thin margins.

Venezuelan oil takes an unconventional route to end-users in China. Transport typically takes more than two months and involves multiple ship-to-ship transfers to mask the origin of the cargo. Close to half of the tankers storing Merey are sitting in waters off China and Southeast Asia, according to ship-tracking data compiled by Bloomberg.


Meanwhile, public data supports estimates that Beijing lent upwards of $60 billion in oil-backed loans to Venezuela through state-run banks until 2015, reaching a level of diplomatic and financial investment unmatched elsewhere in Latin America and perhaps the world.

China became a key lender to Venezuela in 2007, when it first provided funds for infrastructure and oil projects under the late President Hugo Chávez.

--With assistance from Chao Zhang.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/china-says-deeply-shocked-us-145527537.html

surely not -- didn't China read the Maga stooge's post???? China is IMPRESSED and in AWE !! LMAO.

what a bunch of clowns.

Meanwhile ....

https://euromaidanpress.com/2026/01/02/russia-registers-bella-1-tanker-marinera-us-chase/

Russia adopts fleeing tanker mid-chase, tells US to back off
Marinera now registered in Sochi. Moscow demands the US back off.

CNN said that. Try and keep up for a change.

A guest they had on CNN said that. Try to keep up. This was a retired military officer who made than comment. Not CNN.

Updates
Venezuelan Foreign Minister Yvan Gil claims Maduro remains in charge, while his Vice President Delcy Rodriguez reportedly left the country for Russia.

We just turned maduro into an illegal alien. Protocal is that we export him back to venezuala

Did anybody actually watch the presser-I did not-it is on social media that when asked who is going to control the country now that we are taking over Venezuela indefinitely-and the reply was that the oil companies will be paying for it and will be reimbursed to get the oil up and running-

Venezuela currently produces about 1 million barrels a day. Nobody needs to get it "up and running".

He also said the reason he didn't inform congress before the military action was that "they are leakers".

I saw parts of it but figured I would wait to see it in print to sort out some of the stupidity.



This has all been about stealing Venezuela's oil the entire time just as many of us said it was.

But some people call reporting the very things trump says and does as "complaining". Murica!

It’s akin to beating up a handicapped kid… then stealing their lunch money.

Oh those poor drug traffickers. Those poor criminals. Those poor socialists. You all stick together.

Sorry, that isn't the case. I would have been 100% behind the President. Venezuela has been a bad actor for 25 years. Don't tell me what I think. Understand?

I see it as skimming the scum. It's about time.

LOL

Putin is a bad actor. You want to skin that scum too?

Any idea how many bad actors there are strong the globe? You want to give us a list of the ones you advocate the USA unlawfully implementing regime change and taking military action against?

Leave putin alone maga is not allowed to have opinions on putin. Dont question why trump supports putin

If practical/possible, yes. That said, it isn't so it's a moot point to ponder.

There was nothing unlawful about Saturdays actions.

CBS News
World reaction to U.S. strikes on Venezuela pours in
Kerry Breen
Sun, January 4, 2026 at 5:37 AM EST
5 min read


International leaders reacted swiftly on Saturday morning as President Trump confirmed U.S. military strikes in Venezuela and announced the capture of the country's leader, Nicolás Maduro, and his wife.

Many U.S. adversaries, including some of Venezuela's nearest neighbors, condemned the strikes, while other governments around the world called for deescalation and voiced concern for their citizens in the Latin American nation.

Latin American reaction

Colombia, which shares a border with Venezuela, called for urgent deescalation. It said it had "implemented steps to protect the civilian population, preserve stability on the Colombian-Venezuelan border, and promptly address any potential humanitarian or migration needs."

Cuban President Miguel Diaz-Canel called the operation a "criminal US attack." He said the country denounced the attack and called for an "URGENT reaction from the international community."

Brazilian president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva called the U.S. actions a "serious affront" to Venezuela's sovereignty, the AFP news agency reported. He said the strikes and capture of Maduro "cross an unacceptable line" and threaten "the preservation of the region as a zone of peace," according to French news agency AFP.

China says it wants Maduro freed immediately

The Chinese foreign ministry said in a statement Sunday that it "calls on the U.S. to ensure the personal safety of President Nicolas Maduro and his wife, release them at once, (and) stop toppling the government of Venezuela," according to AFP.

Beijing also depicted the U.S. strike that captured Maduro as a "clear violation of international law."

Early Saturday, China had said it "strongly condemns" the U.S. operation.

Iran and Russia condemn U.S. action in Venezuela

Iran also condemned the attack, calling it a "flagrant violation of the national sovereignty and territorial integrity" of Venezuela, AFP reported. Mr. Trump recently responded to reports that at least eight people have been killed amid nearly a week of escalating protests in Iran by warning the Middle Eastern country that the U.S. was "locked and loaded and ready to go."

Russia's foreign ministry accused the U.S. of "an act of armed aggression against Venezuela. This is deeply concerning and condemnable" in a statement, according to the Reuters news agency.

"The pretexts used to justify such actions are unfounded. Ideological animosity has prevailed over business pragmatism and the willingness to build relationships based on trust and predictability," the statement said. "In the current situation, it is important, first and foremost, to prevent further escalation and to focus on finding a way out of the situation through dialogue."

The Russian government called for Venezuela to "be guaranteed the right to determine its own destiny without any destructive, let alone military, interference from outside," and backed other calls for an emergency meeting of the U.N. Security Council.

North Korea condemns U.S. operation

North Korea on Sunday denounced the United States' capture of Maduro as a "serious encroachment of sovereignty."

Pyongyang's foreign ministry "strongly denounces the U.S. hegemony-seeking act committed in Venezuela," said a ministry spokesperson in a statement carried by official state news agency KCNA, referring to what it was characterizing as a U.S. drive for dominance.

"The incident is another example that clearly confirms once again the rogue and brutal nature of the US," they added.

European nations call for deescalation, voice concern over nationals in Venezuela

Top European Union diplomat Kaja Kallas said that she had spoken to Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the E.U.'s ambassador in Caracas. She said the E.U. is "closely monitoring the situation" and noted that it has "repeatedly stated that Mr. Maduro lacks legitimacy."

"Under all circumstances, the principles of international law and the UN Charter must be respected," Kallas wrote. "We call for restraint. The safety of EU citizens in the country is our top priority."

European nations, including Italy and Belgium, said the safety of their citizens was their top priority, and that they were monitoring the situation.

Spain's Foreign Ministry issued a statement calling for "de-escalation and moderation, and for action to always be taken in accordance with international law and the principles of the U.N. Charter," according to Reuters.

The Spanish ministry added an offer to help mediate "to achieve a peaceful and negotiated solution to the current crisis."

U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer said Saturday all countries should "uphold international law" and added that the "U.K. was not involved in any way in this operation." He urged patience in order to "establish the facts."

"I want to speak to President Trump, I want to speak to allies," the British leader said in brief comments aired on U.K. television hours after the U.S. attack. "I can be absolutely clear that we were not involved in that. And as you know, I always say and believe we should all uphold international law."

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said in a statement Saturday that Maduro led Venezuela to disaster and noted that Germany, like many other countries, didn't recognize his presidency after the South American nation's last election.

Merz said a legal classification of the U.S. intervention is "complex" and "we will take time" on the matter.

He said political instability must not arise in Venezuela now and that it's important to ensure "an orderly transition to a government legitimized by elections."

Netanyahu praises Trump

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu praised Mr. Trump for his "bold and historic leadership on behalf of freedom and justice."

"I salute your decisive resolve and the brilliant action of your brave soldiers," he wrote on social media.


https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/world-reaction-u-strikes-venezuela-192700910.html

I don't agree with what we did but how hypocritical of Russia to condemn our actions

It is not a moot point at all. There are somewhere between 60 and 90 dictatorships in the world. Many close to the USA.

Just so we're clear, can you give me a list of all the ones that you advocate we take military action against to implement regime change.

Thanks

Otherwise I'd have to say you're full of chit when you say that you're all for it.

And yes, it was absolutely against international law. Period.

PERIOD.

Bernie hit the nail on the head:


Donald Trump has, once again, shown his contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law. The President of the United States does NOT have the right to unilaterally take this country to war, even against a corrupt and brutal dictator like Maduro. The United States does NOT have the right, as Trump stated this morning, to “run” Venezuela. Congress must immediately pass a War Powers resolution to end this illegal military operation and reassert its constitutional responsibilities.

Trump’s attack on Venezuela will make the United States and the world less safe. This brazen violation of international law gives a green light to any nation on earth that may wish to attack another country to seize their resources or change their governments. This is the horrific logic of force that Putin used to justify his brutal attack on Ukraine.

Trump and his administration have often said they want to revive the Monroe Doctrine, claiming the United States has the right to dominate the affairs of the hemisphere. They have spoken openly about controlling Venezuela’s oil reserves, the largest in the world. This is rank imperialism. It recalls the darkest chapters of U.S. interventions in Latin America, which have left a terrible legacy. It will and should be condemned by the democratic world.

Trump campaigned for president on an “America First” platform. He claimed to be the “peace candidate.” At a time when 60% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck, when our healthcare system is collapsing, when people cannot afford housing and when AI threatens millions of jobs, it is time for the president to focus on the crises facing this country and end this military adventurism abroad. Trump is failing in his job to “run” the United States. He should not be trying to “run” Venezuela.

Not gonna happen.
Congressional republicans are too P-whipped

Here's the problem Peen. If you were alleging that removing Maduro from power is legal, I'm not sure I would agree with you but there is a precedent for it. The arrest of Manuel Noriega happened back in 1989 in Panama after troops were deployed to go in there and get him. So as for the "actions on Saturday" in and of themselves, the law is a little murky but based on precedent there is certainly an argument that can be made for that.

Here's where it gets more complicated than that. Trump claims he will send U.S. oil companies there to take over the production of their oil. He also claims that the U.S. will now run Venezuela until such time as the U.S. can install a suitable government.

He also stated that María Corina Machado, you know, the woman who beat him out for the Nobel Prize, was "not strong enough" and lacked the "support" or "respect" within the country to be its leader. So he's already telling the people of Venezuela who can not be their president.

So not only did he remove Maduro, he is taking over their oil industry, running their government and dictating to them who does and doesn't qualify to be their next president.

Do you really think all of that is legal and acceptable?


That was the plan B answer and excuse for attacking Iraq after it was found we were spoon fed BS about WMD's. Even Bush didn't use the "bad actor" BS as the original excuse. There are bad actors all around the globe so if that's the excuse prepare for this to happen over and over again.

The fact is it seems Republican presidents use our military, a global superpower, to go after the weakest kids on the block. And this time we will be running their country and stealing their oil to boot.

I'm really surprised to see you support that part of it at the very least. Well okay, not so much.

And here Republicans have been saying they are against overthrowing governments and installing regime changes. Right up until the moment trump did it.

This is why we can't have anything nice anymore.

After Trump’s illegal Venezuela coup, there are two dangers: he is emboldened, but has no clue what comes next | Rajan Menon | The Guardian https://share.google/RGFnEElcTPTZHMjFO

More on the illegality and a breakdown of the flimsy, contrived and manufactured excuses.

Unless your MAGA in which case the US can do what it likes and Trump can tell Congress to go F itself.

I mean, it is a little more detailed than a random bot on X-

President Nicolás Maduro has arrived in New York City to be tried by the U.S. Department of Justice on criminal charges related to drug trafficking and weapons possession. His capture began early Saturday morning with multiple explosions reported in Caracas, Venezuela, including at military installations. It soon became clear that the United States was attacking targets in the city. In the immediate aftermath of the operation, which lasted fewer than 30 minutes, senior Venezuelan officials stated that they did not know the whereabouts of President Nicolás Maduro and First Lady Ilia Flores, and demanded proof of life. Reportedly, the U.S. Army’s Delta Force and the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment carried out the capture mission during what has been labeled Operation Absolute Resolve. Venezuelan officials have said at least 40 people, civilians and military personnel, were killed in the attacks.

President Donald Trump quickly took to Truth Social to announce, “The United States of America has successfully carried out a large scale strike against Venezuela and its leader, President Nicolas Maduro, who has been, along with his wife, captured and flown out of the country. This operation was done in conjunction with U.S. Law Enforcement.” For his part, Secretary of State Marco Rubio explained that Maduro “has been arrested by U.S. personnel to stand trial on criminal charges in the United States, and that the kinetic action we saw tonight was deployed to protect and defend those executing the arrest warrant.” Attorney General Pam Bondi characterized the operations as law enforcement conducted by the armed forces.

Nicolas Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, have been indicted in the Southern District of New York. Nicolas Maduro has 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. They will soon face the full wrath of American justice on American soil in American courts.

She went on to thank “our brave military who conducted the incredible and highly successful mission to capture these two alleged international narco traffickers.” President Trump has since said the United States is going to “run” Venezuela “until such time as we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition.”

The operation follows on the heels of 35 boat strikes that have killed at least 115, which the United States has justified based on self-defense, and a CIA drone strike in late December on a docking facility in Venezuela alleged to have been used by drug cartels. Presumably, the United States likewise justifies, in part, Saturday’s operation on the same basis, self-defense against drug trafficking into the United States.

In this article, we explain several international law issues raised by the operation, some of which have been addressed in greater depth in the Just Security collection of articles on the drug boat strikes and other operations dealing with Venezuela. In particular, Operation Absolute Resolve implicates the prohibition on the use of force against other States (e.g., under the UN Charter), extraterritorial law enforcement, and initiation of an international armed conflict (e.g., under the Geneva Conventions).

The bottom line is, unlike the boat strikes the U.S. military has carried out to date that have occurred in international waters against stateless vessels, this operation, striking Venezuela and abducting its president, is clearly a violation of the prohibition on the use of force in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. That prohibition is the bedrock rule of the international system that separates the rule of law from anarchy, safeguards small States from their more powerful neighbors, and protects civilians from the devastation of war. The consequences of flouting this rule so brazenly are likely to extend well beyond the case of Maduro’s forcible ouster. Likewise, the initiation of an armed conflict – triggering the application of the law of armed conflict, including all four Geneva Conventions – has meaningful consequences, ranging from the protections now owed to Venezuelan nationals in the United States, to the application of rules governing treatment of Maduro and his wife while in U.S. custody, to accountability for any war crimes committed in the course of the conflict.

An Unlawful Use of Force
The prohibition on the use of force: First and foremost, the U.S. operation striking Venezuela and abducting its president is a clear violation of the prohibition on the use of force except in self-defense against armed attack or with U.N. Security Council authorization, both of which are explained further below. The prohibition is set forth in Article 2(4) of the U.N. Charter, which provides, “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.” Both the United States and Venezuela are Parties to the Charter, so the prohibition is undoubtedly binding under treaty law. Moreover, as the United States has long held and the International Court of Justice has noted, the prohibition reflects customary international law, which likewise binds the United States (Paramilitary Activities, ¶ 190).

Any forcible action by one State against another triggers the prohibition. Accordingly, the U.S. operations constituted a prima facie breach unless justified by one of two narrow exceptions: 1) authorization by the U.N. Security Council under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter; or 2) the inherent right of self-defense provided for in Article 51 of the Charter and customary international law. There being no Security Council authorization, the sole possible legal basis for the operation would be self-defense.

In relevant part, Article 51 provides, “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations.” Thus, the legality of the U.S. operation turns on whether Venezuela has engaged in an “armed attack” against the United States (or an armed attack is imminent), triggering the right of self-defense, and, if so, whether the U.S. response was both “necessary and proportionate,” the two conditions for the use of force in self-defense (Paramilitary Activities, paras. 194, 237; Nuclear Weapons, para. 41; Oil Platforms, paras. 43, 73-74, 76). The conditions are relevant only if the first hurdle is crossed. As will be explained, it is clearly not.

No self-defense justification: The Trump administration has repeatedly justified its strikes on boats allegedly carrying drugs (largely involving cocaine, much of which is likely bound for Europe) on the basis of self-defense. For instance, early on, a White House spokesperson claimed they were “conducted against the operations of a designated terrorist organization and was taken in defense of vital U.S. national interests and in the collective self-defense of other nations.” Along these lines, a classified Justice Department memo apparently argues that force may be used against cartels because they pose an “imminent threat to Americans.” For these assertions to make any sense, the drug activity must be characterized as an “armed attack” against the United States. Indeed, in a statement to the UN Security Council in October, the U.S. representative said, “President Trump determined these cartels are non-state armed groups, designated them as terrorist organizations, and determined that their actions constitute an armed attack against the United States.”

It is on this basis that the United States may attempt to assert self-defense against Venezuela. As evidenced by the charges against Maduro both in 2020 and in the new superseding indictment, the administration links him and other government officials to the activities of drug cartels. For instance, in August, the State Department alleged,

Maduro helped manage and ultimately lead the Cartel of the Suns, a Venezuelan drug-trafficking organization comprised of high-ranking Venezuelan officials. As he gained power in Venezuela, Maduro participated in a corrupt and violent narco-terrorism conspiracy with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization. Maduro negotiated multi-ton shipments of FARC-produced cocaine; directed the Cartel of the Suns to provide military-grade weapons to the FARC; coordinated with narcotics traffickers in Honduras and other countries to facilitate large-scale drug trafficking; and solicited assistance from FARC leadership in training an unsanctioned militia group that functioned, in essence, as an armed forces unit for the Cartel of the Suns.

We have refuted the self-defense argument vis-à-vis the cartels in earlier articles (see, e.g., here and here). Drug trafficking simply does not qualify as, and has never been considered, an “armed attack.” In brief, the relationship between drug trafficking and the deaths that eventually result from drugs being purchased and used in the United States is far too attenuated to qualify as an armed attack. The drugs must be successfully transported into the country, where they are distributed to various drug organizations, and subsequently sold on the streets, in most cases by individuals who are unrelated to the original drug cartels. Willing buyers then purchase them; almost all survive. In fact, those deaths that occur run contrary to the interests of the cartels because they deprive the drug market of customers and risk deterring others from buying the drugs.

It is indisputable that drug trafficking is condemnable criminal activity, but it is not the type of activity that triggers the right of self-defense in international law. It is not a use of force, it is not “hostilities,” and it is not “combat,” despite Trump administration officials using these labels when describing drug trafficking activity.

The connection is even more attenuated in the case of Maduro and other members of the Venezuelan government who may be involved in drug activity. After all, the sole purpose of the cartels is to traffic drugs, whereas, if the allegations are true, the Venezuelan government’s involvement, albeit also condemnable, is less direct. Accordingly, if the self-defense argument does not work for drug cartels, asserting that it applies to Maduro and the Venezuelan government is even less plausible. Simply put, there is no basis for suggesting that any Venezuelan government involvement in drug activity rises to the level of an armed attack against the United States, giving it the right to resort to force against Venezuela to defend itself. This being so, the Operation Absolute Resolve was a clear violation of the international law prohibition on the use of force.

Distinguishing past practice – the Noriega case: Three points should be made about the closest historical example in U.S. practice: the 1989 U.S. operation to capture General Manuel Noriega in Panama and bring him to the United States to face drug smuggling and other charges. First, reaffirming the prohibition against the use of force, the U.N. General Assembly condemned the U.S. operation. The General Assembly stated that it “strongly deplores the intervention in Panama by the armed forces of the United States of America, which con­stitutes a flagrant violation of international law.”

Second, the U.S. justifications for the Noriega-Panama operation distinguish it from the Maduro-Venezuela case. Most importantly, in the former case, the United States claimed to be acting by invitation of the rightful Head of State. “It was welcomed by the democratically elected government of Panama,” President George H.W. Bush informed the U.S. Congress in a War Powers Resolution report. Likewise, U.S. Ambassador Thomas Pickering told the U.N. Security Council, “United States action in Panama has been approved, applauded and welcomed by the democratically elected Government of Panama.”

Third, as noted by President George H.W. Bush, the United States acted after the Panamanian National Assembly declared a state of war against the United States, and after forces under Noriega’s command “killed an unarmed American serviceman; wounded another; arrested and brutally beat a third American serviceman; and then brutally interrogated his wife, threatening her with sexual abuse.” Bush added that “General Noriega’s reckless threats and attacks upon Americans in Panama created an imminent danger to the 35,000 American citizens in Panama.” Secretary of State James A. Baker also stated, “We received an intelligence report that General Noriega was considering launching an urban commando attack on American citizens in a residential neighborhood.” None of those factors is present here.

Venezuela may use necessary and proportionate force in self-defense: Finally, based on the U.S. position that all wrongful uses of force are armed attacks, Venezuela has the right to use necessary and proportionate force against the United States’ armed attack to defend itself (DoD, Law of War Manual, §1.11.5.2; but see Paramilitary Activities, ¶ 191). Additionally, as provided for in Article 51 of the Charter, Venezuela may seek the assistance of other States acting in collective self-defense.

Intervention into Venezuela’s Internal Affairs: Finally, we note that in addition to a violation of the use of force prohibition, the U.S. action to remove Maduro as Head of State amounts to an unlawful intervention into Venezuela’s internal affairs (“choice of political system,” Paramilitary Activities, ¶ 205). Regime change by one State in another amounts to intervention when it is “coercive” (¶ 206), which Saturday’s operation obviously was.

Extraterritorial Law Enforcement
The administration has framed the operation on Saturday and the seizure of Maduro and his wife in the context of law enforcement. The key international law issue in the case is the extraterritorial exercise of “enforcement jurisdiction,” specifically, the power to arrest. (One of us, Ryan, has explained why the administration’s reliance on a 1989 DOJ Office of Legal Counsel memo erroneously concluding that the president may, as a domestic law matter, “override” art. 2(4) of the UN Charter is flawed.).

No enforcement jurisdiction in the territory of other States without their consent: There are three types of jurisdiction under international law: prescriptive (legislative), adjudicative (judicial), and enforcement (executive). International law allows a degree of prescriptive jurisdiction (the power to pass laws) over offences committed abroad, as perhaps alleged here. However, the exercise of enforcement jurisdiction is strictly limited to a State’s own territory (or in limited cases, in the commons, as in the case of jurisdiction aboard a flag state vessel). But on another State’s territory, the consent of that State is required (S.S. Lotus, PCIJ, page 18; Restatement Third of Foreign Relations, § 432). Without it, the action violates the territorial State’s sovereignty on two grounds. First, it is a violation of that State’s territorial sovereignty; this has clearly occurred. Second, it is an “usurpation” of an “inherently governmental function” by another State. In other words, the United States has engaged in governmental activity in Venezuela – law enforcement – that is exclusively the domain of the Venezuelan government.

A leading precedent involves the U.N. response to an extraterritorial law enforcement operation: the forcible apprehension of Nazi fugitive Adolph Eichmann in Argentina by Israeli agents in May 1960, and bringing him to trial in Israel for war crimes. With support from the United States, the U.N. Security Council passed a resolution stating:

Considering that the violation of the sovereignty of a Member State is incompatible with the Charter of the United Nations …
Noting that the repetition of acts such as that giving rise to this situation would involve a breach of the principles upon which international order is founded, creating an atmosphere of insecurity and distrust incompatible with the preservation of peace …
Requests the Government of Israel to make appropriate reparation in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the rules of international law.

In 1989, the State Department’s legal adviser, Abe Sofaer, stated in written congressional testimony, “The United States has repeatedly associated itself with the view that unconsented arrests violate the principle of territorial integrity.” He added, “Arrests in foreign States without their consent have no legal justification under international law aside from self-defense.”

The United States claims, rightfully so, that Maduro’s presidency is not “legitimate.” However, that has no bearing on this situation. Even though the United States does not recognize the Maduro government as legitimate, international law provides that the relevant officials to grant consent are those of the government that exercises “effective control” over the territory, in this case, officials in the Maduro administration (Tinoco Arbitration, pages 381-82). Obviously, no such consent has been granted.

Head of state immunity and inviolability: Moreover, Maduro enjoyed immunity (known as “immunity ratione personae”) from foreign enforcement jurisdiction under customary international law. As noted by the International Court of Justice in its Arrest Warrant judgement, “it is firmly established that … certain holders of high-ranking office in a State, such as the Head of State, Head of Government and Minister for Foreign Affairs, enjoy immunities from jurisdiction in other States, both civil and criminal” (¶ 51; see also Certain Questions of Mutual Assistance, ¶¶ 170-174).

Relatedly, the United States has observed that “in addition to immunity from criminal jurisdiction, heads of state, heads of government, and foreign ministers who enjoy personal immunity also benefit from personal inviolability, a protection that informs their treatment in the criminal context.” Such inviolability includes protection from arrest by other States while in office. ( Comments from the United States on the International Law Commission’s Draft Articles on Criminal Immunity).

While in office, this immunity and inviolability is absolute and bars any form of enforcement jurisdiction by another State. The purpose of the immunity, as noted by the Court, is to “ensure the effective performance of their functions on behalf of their respective States” (¶ 53). It is a manifestation of the Principle of “sovereign equality” in international law (UN Charter, art. 2(1)). Where some might argue that an exception exists for Heads of State who commit serious war crimes and other atrocities, that is not relevant to the U.S. case against Maduro.

The Trump administration may argue that Maduro was not, in fact, the Head of State, given that his most recent re-election was neither free nor fair (we agree with that as a factual matter), and that the United States does not recognize his government. Similarly, following the Saturday swearing-in as interim President of Delcy Rodriguez, the United States may argue that he is no longer Head of State, even if he was previously so. Both arguments fail. First, withdrawing recognition of a government does not remove the personal immunity that the incumbent head of state enjoys under customary international law. Second, Rodriguez has said (post swearing in) that Maduro is “the only President of Venezuela,” and is calling for the release of Maduro and his wife.

Unlawful use of lethal force: Even if international law permitted the United States to exercise enforcement jurisdiction in Venezuela, which it does not, the use of lethal force to do so was self-evidently unlawful. During law enforcement operations, resort to deadly force is lawful only when necessary in the face of an immediate threat of death or grievous bodily injury to the law enforcement officials or others (Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials; see also UN Human Rights Committee, General Comment 36, para 12).

Secretary Rubio claims that the kinetic operations mounted by the U.S. armed forces were necessary to protect those taking custody of Maduro, presumably by preventing the Venezuelan armed forces from responding. However, the threat must be immediate and strictly necessary. The strikes were, instead, primarily preventive and anticipatory in character; they fall far outside the scope of permissible lethal measures during a law enforcement operation. If at least 40 people were killed, including civilians, that would be strong evidence that Rubio’s asserted justification is without legal merit.

Moreover, it should be self-evident that “unit self-defense” (i.e., defense of a contingent of armed forces in a foreign country, as opposed to self-defense of the United States as a nation) cannot be the lawful basis for the use of force when any potential need for unit self-defense is only itself created in the first instance by the insertion of the U.S. forces.

Recovery of Unlawfully Expropriated Oil Assets

We also note that Trump has claimed that Venezuela has “stolen” U.S. oil and assets and demanded their return. In 2007, Venezuela, under President Hugo Chavez, converted existing oil extraction contracts into State-controlled joint ventures. When some major foreign oil companies rejected these terms, their assets were expropriated without the required prompt, adequate, and effective compensation. Although Venezuela had previously nationalized the oil industry in 1976, these 2007 actions targeted foreign investors specifically and amounted to unlawful expropriations under international law. Trump is now offering to help American oil companies recover their wrongfully seized assets, reportedly contingent on compliance with U.S. policy priorities, although the nature and legality of these conditions remain unclear.

However, one thing is clear from the outset: using force to acquire those assets is unlawful, as the action does not qualify as self-defense, no matter how unlawful the expropriation may have been. And even if it did, the forcible U.S. action does not comport with the necessity condition for self-defense because there are non-forcible avenues that could be pursued. Examples include retorsion, arbitration, and countermeasures under the law of State responsibility (Articles on State Responsibility, art. 22). Simply put, the United States may not simply seize back the assets by force.

We do not address here the potential violation, if not war crime, of the law of armed conflict for pillaging another State’s natural resources. Readers may wish to consult James Stewart’s prior analysis in a 2016 essay at Just Security.

Armed Conflict
Putting aside the issue of whether the U.S. operation violated international law, which it undoubtedly did, it also initiated an “international armed conflict” between the United States and Venezuela. This is so regardless of how the United States might characterize the operations. Under Common Article 2 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, the existence of an international armed conflict is a question of fact. In other words, if there are hostilities between the States, there is an international armed conflict even if one of them does not formally recognize its existence. Common Article 2 is universally accepted as reflective of customary international law.

There are numerous challenging issues regarding the classification of conflicts, such as the precise threshold at which they are triggered and whether another State’s support of a non-State organized armed group that is engaged in hostilities with a State suffices to initiate an armed conflict between the two States. Those thornier issues are not relevant to these strikes and the Maduro capture operation. The intensity of the U.S. operations directed at Venezuela clearly crossed any conceivable threshold necessary to trigger an international armed conflict. To be clear, the operations put the United States and Venezuela in armed conflict as a matter of fact and of law.

(Note: If the United States began “running the country,” as President Trump suggested, an enduring international armed conflict may exist. That’s because a military occupation of another country, even if it meets with no armed resistance, is classified as an “international armed conflict.” More on the law of occupation is below.)

The consequences are profound. To begin with, the law of armed conflict, including all four of the Geneva Conventions, now applies. Of particular note, the rules for targeting permit Venezuelan forces to attack U.S. forces anywhere in Venezuelan or U.S. territory, and on the high seas, in international airspace, or in outer space (so-called “status-based targeting”). The law of armed conflict also prohibits targeting civilians and civilian objects (DoD Law of War Manual (§ 5.5). This is especially relevant to the issue of whether operations may now be directed at drug-related targets in Venezuela.

Targeting individuals involved in drug trafficking: Individuals involved in drug activities do not qualify as lawful targets unless they are members of the armed forces or “directly participating in the hostilities.” As explained in the DoD Law of War Manual (§ 5.8.3): “At a minimum, taking a direct part in hostilities includes actions that are, by their nature and purpose, intended to cause actual harm to the enemy.”

As is apparent, drug-related activities do not satisfy this standard (see our fuller explanation here). Accordingly, attacking those involved in such activities in the context of this armed conflict would violate the law of armed conflict prohibition and constitute a war crime, so long as those civilians do not separately participate in the armed hostilities (in the absence of an armed conflict between the United States and Venezuela, those killings constituted murder, and extrajudicial killings under international human rights law, but were not war crimes because that body of law clearly did not apply). More difficult questions arise as to whether an attack on non-state actors ferrying drugs on the high seas would be related enough to the war between the United States and Venezuela (an armed conflict “nexus” requirement) to be governed by the law of armed conflict, and thus constitute a war crime.

Targeting drug-related assets and facilities: Whether drug-related assets and facilities may be attacked depends on whether the U.S. position on so-called war-sustaining (or revenue-generating) targets is correct and the factual extent to which Venezuela relies on drug proceeds to fund its war effort. The same is true of its oil production and exports.

A war-sustaining entity “indirectly, but effectively supports and sustains the belligerents’ warfighting capability,” such as “exports of products the proceeds of which are used by the belligerent to purchase arms and armaments” (Commander’s Handbook, § 7.4). The prevailing view in international law is that war-sustaining objects do not qualify as targetable military objectives. However, the United States has, for decades, claimed that war-sustaining objects are legitimate military objectives. It is a position with which one of us agrees, but the others do not (DoD Law of War Manual, § 5.6.8).

To the extent neutrality law survives the U.N. Charter era (a much-debated question), it also now applies. Since the United States is the aggressor in this situation, under the “qualified neutrality” interpretation of neutrality law asserted by the United States, all States would be prohibited from providing it any assistance. Yet, they could come to Venezuela’s assistance without violating their neutrality law obligations.

The law of occupation would apply if the United States exercises “effective control”: In light of President Trump’s claim that “we are going to run the country now,” the law of occupation outlined in the Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV) will apply if the United States exerts “effective control” of Venezuela. For now, it seems unlikely, based on the current facts (no U.S. troops on the ground, the swearing in of Vice President Rodriguez as interim President), that this situation will develop. Thus, while Trump has essentially used the rhetoric of occupation through coercion of proxy officials, the United States has not attempted to control territory itself, nor is it at all clear that officials who do exercise governmental authority will act as directed by the United States.

Prisoner of war and “protected person” status under the Geneva Conventions: As a civilian captured by attacking forces in an international armed conflict, Maduro’s wife is entitled to a robust set of protections afforded to captured civilians in GCIV. Indeed, Flores qualifies as a “protected person,” as defined in art. 4(1) of that treaty:

Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.

Arguably, Maduro also qualifies as a protected person. Given his status as commander-in-chief of Venezuela’s armed forces, he might also be considered a prisoner of war entitled to the extensive protections of the Third Geneva Convention on the Protection of Prisoners of War (GCIII). In the 1992 case of U.S. v. Noriega, a federal district court found that General Noriega was “entitled to the full range of rights under the [POW] treaty, which has been incorporated into U.S. law.” However, in that case, which involved Noriega’s seizure by U.S. forces during the 1989 invasion of Panama, the general was the military dictator of Panama and also commanded the Panama Defense Forces.

A suite of protections also kicks in for other civilians who are nationals of one party to the conflict and find themselves in the hands of the adverse State. Accordingly, Venezuelans in the United States are now “protected persons” under the Fourth Geneva Convention, as are Americans inside Venezuela. This has far-ranging implications for U.S. immigration and related policies. For example, Venezuelans who are protected persons have rights including protection against “brutality” (GC IV art. 32), against collective punishment and reprisals (GC IV art. 33); parity of employment opportunities (GC IV art. 39), rules for return of detainees transferred to a third State as in CECOT/El Salvador (GC IV art. 45), and family unity in detention (GC IV art. 82).

Concluding Thoughts

The operation against Venezuela, which culminated in the capture of President Maduro and his wife, amounts to a severe breach of foundational principles of international law. It constitutes a clear violation of the prohibition on the use of force enshrined in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. The claim that drug trafficking, or State involvement in such trafficking, constitutes an “armed attack” sufficient to justify a forcible response in self-defense has no support in customary international law or State practice.

Nor can the exercise of extraterritorial enforcement of domestic criminal law, even against narco- traffickers or indicted heads of State, be justified in the absence of Venezuela’s consent. By exercising enforcement jurisdiction there, the United States has violated Venezuelan sovereignty both because the operation occurred on its territory and because it has usurped an inherently governmental function (law enforcement) exclusively enjoyed by Venezuela. Moreover, despite any crimes he may have committed, Maduro’s seizure violates the long-standing rule of immunity ratione personae for heads of State.

In addition to violating bedrock jus ad bellum rules governing the resort to force and the sovereignty of Venezuela, the operation has triggered an international armed conflict between the United States and Venezuela. The legal consequences are immediate and sweeping – the whole body of the law of armed conflict now applies, including the law governing detention, the conduct of hostilities, protected persons, and war crimes.

The U.S. operation has long-term implications for the integrity of the international legal order, including the systems put in place to prevent war and protect States from using their criminal enforcement powers to intrude on other countries’ sovereign prerogatives.

About the Authors
Michael Schmitt
Michael Schmitt (Bluesky - LinkedIn) is Professor of International Law at the University of Reading, Affiliate at Harvard Law School’s Program on International Law and Armed Conflict, and Visiting Research Professor at the International Institute of Humanitarian Law.

Ryan Goodman
Ryan Goodman (X - Bluesky - LinkedIn) is co-editor-in-chief of Just Security and Anne and Joel Ehrenkranz Professor of Law at New York University School of Law.

Tess Bridgeman
Tess Bridgeman (Bluesky - LinkedIn) is co-editor-in-chief of Just Security and Senior Fellow and Visiting Scholar at the Reiss Center on Law and Security at NYU School of Law. She previously served as Special Assistant to the President, Associate Counsel to the President, and Deputy Legal Adviser to the National Security Council (NSC) in the Obama Administration, and at the U.S. State Department in the Office of the Legal Adviser.


https://www.justsecurity.org/127981/international-law-venezuela-maduro/

The problem is you just explained international law so it must be something from the liberal media or fake news.

Trump just last month categorized fentanyl as a WMD. Thus creating a work around to claim the U.S. was under an armed attack from Venezuela. Only the naive would buy that BS. Yet there is nothing to substantiate fentanyl was being sent to the U.S. from or through Venezuela. It's obvious this was trump's plan from the very beginning. From the sources I could find less than 10% of U.S.-bound cocaine passes through or originates from Venezuela.

None of this was ever about drugs.

If drugs were what trump opposes so much why was it Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernández was pardoned by trump just last month, after being convicted in a U.S. federal court of conspiring to import more than 400 tons of cocaine into the United States.

The conviction came at the hands of a liberal judge perhaps?

A detailed read. Well thought out and explained.

The military action was unlawful. period.

Unfortunately there's far too many words for MAGA Fanboys.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/guneyy...s-and-the-oil-shock-china-cant-price-in/


Maduro, Venezuela, The U.S.—And The Oil Shock China Can’t Price In
ByGüney Yıldız,Contributor. I focus on the nexus of AI adoption, energy, and geopolitics.


Follow Author
Jan 03, 2026, 12:45pm ESTJan 03, 2026, 01:43pm EST



US-VENEZUELA-CONFLICT-TRUMP
US President Donald Trump, alongside (L/R) Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, speaks to the press following US military actions in Venezuela, at his Mar-a-Lago residence in Palm Beach, Florida, on January 3, 2026. President Trump said Saturday that US forces had captured Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro after launching a "large scale strike" on the South American country. (Photo by Jim WATSON / AFP via Getty Images)
... More
AFP via Getty Images
Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro was captured by U.S. special forces in Caracas early on January 3 following airstrikes and explosions around the capital, according to multiple news outlets. Within hours, tankers in the Caribbean started altering course. By midday, the diesel crack looked like it was widening. This suggests the market isn't pricing a global supply shock, but the specific risk of a heavy sour crude squeeze.

That spread tells the whole story. Venezuela represents less than 1% of global oil consumption, but its Merey 16 grade feeds refineries with coking capacity that can't easily switch to light sweet barrels.

This operation raises profound questions about international law and U.S. unilateralism. Critics point to potential violations of the UN Charter's prohibition on force, echoing debates over the 2003 Iraq invasion. Repercussions could include strained U.S.-Latin America ties, accelerated migration from Venezuela, and tests of alliances for Russia and China. These broader geopolitical shifts may reshape global norms for years, overshadowing short-term market moves. Yet the energy dimensions remain vital, as disrupted flows expose dependencies in an already volatile crude landscape.

China’s exposure hits three specific areas.
The first is financial: an estimated $17-19 billion in outstanding principal from China Development Bank's oil-for-loans program, per AidData research. That's the largest single-country commodity-backed position in Beijing's portfolio out of the $60 billion extended since 2007.


The second is operational. Shandong’s independent refiners configured coking units specifically for Venezuelan heavy crude, a grade trading at deep discounts because Western buyers can’t touch it. The third is strategic. Washington just showed it's willing to use kinetic force to disrupt Chinese commodity supply chains in the Americas.

MORE FOR YOU
‘Just The Beginning’—Bitcoin And Crypto Suddenly Braced For A ‘Critical’ $17.3 Trillion Oil Price Shock

Blue Jays Send 1-Word Message After $60 Million Move Raises Bo Bichette Question

Apple Won’t Release iPhone 18 In 2026, New Report Claims

Chevron’s joint ventures keep running under a renewed specific license from Treasury, according to NPR. Data indicates U.S.-bound exports of roughly 150,000 bpd in November 2025, per Reuters data. Valero and Marathon have first call on those barrels. The downstream risk for China is simple: Every Venezuelan barrel reaching American shores is one Beijing must replace from a tighter market at full price.

The Feedstock Cliff
Position managers at Shandong’s teapots face an immediate question: Where do replacement barrels come from?

Venezuela's exports hit roughly 921,000 bpd in November 2025, according to Reuters, with China taking about 80% of the total (some 746,000 bpd). These barrels often arrived via Malaysia’s ship-to-ship transshipment hubs or through rebranding practices designed to hide their origin. Reuters previously described traders rebranding Venezuelan cargoes as “Brazilian” to bypass transshipment steps.


That channel looks tighter and higher-friction than it did in late 2025. Treasury’s entity-specific designations, which name vessels by IMO number, reduce plausible deniability. The threat environment alone is enough to deter loadings and prompt diversions at the margin.

Substitutes exist, but none replicate the economics. It’s not because Venezuela is unique, but because the replacement set is limited by crude quality, freight and pipeline/tanker logistics.

Merey is genuinely heavy. Crude-profile data sources put it around the mid-teens API (often cited around ~16.6). Merey crude profile Western Canadian Select is also heavy and sour, widely described around the low-20s API band (typically ~19–22 API). WCS crude profile Mexican Maya similarly sits in a heavy-sour range; PMI describes Maya as heavy at ~21–22 API. PMI on Maya

The price problem is that discount numbers are moving targets. Differentials swing quickly based on freight, refinery runs and sanctions friction. It’s safer to think in regimes: sanctioned Venezuelan barrels have often cleared at meaningful discounts to benchmarks, but any attempt to pin a tight range (like “$10–13 below Brent”) should be read as time-stamped rather than a stable attribute.

Canadian heavy via the Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion is a plausible swing barrel since TMX adds 590,000 bpd of Pacific-facing capacity from Alberta, per Reuters. But if Shandong refiners bid more aggressively for Canadian cargoes, the WCS differential could narrow, which raises feedstock costs and tightens supply for US Gulf Coast competitors who also need heavy crude.

Put differently, Valero and Dongming Petrochemical are now competing for the same Canadian molecules. Someone pays more.

The Credit Exposure
China Development Bank's Venezuela position looks more like a structural write-down risk than a trading loss.

CDB extended over $60 billion since 2007, according to CSIS analysis, secured by future oil shipments rather than sovereign guarantees. The model worked when Venezuela produced 2.4 million bpd, but it broke when output collapsed, falling to as low as 350,000 bpd in 2020 before recovering to roughly 900,000-1.1 million bpd by late 2025, per OPEC and PDVSA data.

CDB granted grace periods, accepted delayed shipments, and rolled over principal. The outstanding balance stabilized at $17-19 billion under assumptions that no longer hold. The Stimson Center notes that China agreed to defer payments repeatedly as Venezuela's repayment capacity eroded.

The collateral is underground, locked behind degraded upgraders, an elevated maritime risk environment, and a transitional government that may invoke odious debt doctrine to subordinate Chinese claims.

Recovery scenarios:
Scenario A (45%): Pragmatic accommodation. Beijing quietly engages transitional government, negotiates 40-50 cents on the dollar, redirects teapot demand to Canadian and Iraqi grades. Financial loss absorbed to preserve broader trading relationships.

Scenario B (35%): Extended standoff. Beijing refuses recognition, teapots attempt continued sourcing despite vessel designations. U.S. escalates to secondary sanctions on Chinese banks processing Venezuelan-origin payments. Teapot margins collapse within six to nine months.

Scenario C (20%): Venezuelan collapse. Transitional government fails, military factions fragment, production drops below 600,000 bpd. Neither Chinese debt recovery nor American reconstruction succeeds. Heavy sour exits global market for years.

Actor Calculus
Shandong independents built their margin on sanctions arbitrage by purchasing Venezuelan crude at deep discounts. That model is finished. Dongming, Hengli and peers face margin compression until feedstock slates reconfigure. Some won't survive the transition.

State majors Sinopec and CNPC maintained a deliberate distance from Venezuelan exposure; scholars describe this as a "lender's trap" China created for itself. They now face political pressure to absorb teapot shortfalls, meaning state balance sheets essentially subsidize private operators' stranded positions.

CDB must choose between marking down the portfolio (signaling to Ecuador, Pakistan, and other BRI borrowers that commodity-backed loans can't survive regime change) or extending indefinitely (carrying non-performing assets). Neither option looks attractive.

Beijing leadership condemned the "hegemonic" intervention but needs economic stability. Escalating with Washington over Venezuelan principle invites secondary sanctions targeting Chinese banks' dollar clearing. Pragmatism suggests quiet accommodation, even if it contradicts public rhetoric.

Not worth it.

As the Venezuelans and the majority of the world celebrate the fall of Maduro. The left here in the us and a few other Marxist are still upset. Just read the board from some of our far out there posters!!!

You aren't wrapped very tight are you? Who in this entire thread said they are upset that Maduro is no longer in charge of Venezuela?

The problem is trump claims he is now in charge of Venezuela. He said he will send in American oil companies to take over Venezuela's oil resources. He has once again threatened the current president who took over when Maduro was captured and that she may face a harsher punishment than Maduro did.

You are supporting the actions of a 21st century thug. Some of us expect more than that from the leader of the free world. Pay attention to what the actual issue is here instead of just spewing right wing extremist talking points.

Cry some more liberal tears!!! Marxist are the only ones upset.

As fascists applaud.

Just a few thoughts put down in bullet point format - and an article on the fake AI generated videos at the end (the fake ones showing Venezuela celebrating which Day of the Dog referenced).

1. The action to use force to go in and remove another countries leader is against international law. Fact.

2. The justifications for the USA's beef with Venezuela that this action comes on the back of - is manufactured and contrived.

3. The USA doesn't exist in a vacuum - it needs to respect and uphold international laws and treaties it is part of and has signed. Quoting USA legislation and manufacturing a lie to justify the actions does not pass the smell test. No-one else in the world is buying it.

4. Republicans were all about American's first and no forever wars and not policing the world - and Trump has now launched military strikes against 3 other sovereign nations since term 2 began. And is now talking about empire expansion with regards Greenland. Anyone not at least a little concerned is 100% fooling themselves.

5. What Trump has done has opened the door for Taiwan to be attacked and taken by China. It has legitimized Putin in Ukraine or at least given Putin a basis for claiming such. The world is less safe today than before.

6. The idea that Maduro was a bad actor and therefore we were justified is complete and utter nonsense. There are lots (60+) countries run by dictators and bad actors ... If you are in favor of the action in Venezuela - let me know which other countries and bad guys you want to remove with unilateral, illegal military actions.... do it now so we know that you aren't just a Trump stooge that will justify anything he does after the fact. To repeat posts from before - the drugs hitting the streets in the USA are NOT manufactured or harvested in Venezuela. There is no imminent threat. There is no "weapon of mass destruction" that comes from or came from that country.

7. Europe and essentially the rest of the world is shocked and alarmed by this action. Telling yourself otherwise is an exercise in lying to yourself. Telling yourself it doesn't matter is foolish.

8. Not going to get into the USA "running" another country. F'n ridiculous. You can't make that sort of chit up.

9. The country is supposed to have checks and balances in place - but Trump is acting like a King, actively trying to erode and undermine that. As with a point above, anyone not a least a little concerned is fooling themselves.


As promised - article on the FAKE videos showing Venezuelans celebrating:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/ckgx05erygvt

A number of misleading videos have been posted online claiming to show people flooding the streets in Caracas, waving flags and dancing in celebration after the US seized President Nicolás Maduro.

While many celebrations did break out this weekend over Maduro’s deposition, they were in Latin American countries such as Argentina and Chile, and other countries with Venezuelan diaspora such as Spain and the US.

We have not seen visual evidence of large celebrations inside Venezuela so far.

But a video shared on X by right-wing conspiracy theorist Alex Jones claims to show people on the streets of Caracas this weekend. It has been viewed more than two million times and shows an aerial shot of a large crowd with vehicles attempting to move through it.

Jones claimed: “Millions of Venezuelans flooded the streets of Caracas and other major cities in celebration of the ouster of Communist dictator Nicholas Maduro.”

However, by reverse searching frames from the video and finding the original version, we were able to confirm that it instead shows opposition protests in Caracas in July 2024 after Maduro’s disputed presidential win.

Another post by a pro-Trump journalist that has been viewed nearly four million times shows a group of people with Venezuelan flags dancing to music. “World Cup style celebrations are erupting all across Venezuela,” the user said.

While the video is recent, by checking the details in the background and corroborating it with other videos of the same event, we confirmed that it was actually filmed at a Chevron petrol station in Doral, Florida, which is home to a large number of Venezuelan-Americans.

A similar video claimed to show a jubilant crowd in Venezuela, but by checking the landmarks seen in the clip we confirmed that it was instead filmed in Panama City.

One Venezuelan who lives in the UK told the BBC that people inside the country were “very quiet” about Maduro’s seizure because they couldn’t "freely voice our feelings about what has happened".

------ With the number of times the fake videos have been viewed by MAGA fanboys, it is no wonder they are so blind and full of false justification for anything Trump does. You know that if those have been viewed that many times, other influencers and Randos have reposted them and no doubt filled the MAGA echo chamber with them.

Day of the Dawg calls posting facts and posting laws liberal crying. Facts are not their friend.

Trump says U.S. is 'in charge' of Venezuela and warns interim leader to cooperate

The president's comments aboard Air Force One contrasted with the diplomatic tone of Venezuela's Delcy Rodríguez, who extended an invitation to work with the U.S.

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump stated late Sunday that "we're in charge" of Venezuela, while warning its interim leader Delcy Rodríguez that she will fare "probably worse" than captured President Nicolas Maduro if she does not cooperate.

It was his latest threat to Rodríguez, the former vice president, who struck a more diplomatic tone as she extended an invitation to work with the U.S. “on an agenda of cooperation” and “within the framework of international law.”

Trump threatened military action against Colombia, drawing backlash from its president, but said there were no plans for immediate intervention in Cuba, predicting its government was "just going to fall." He again outlined his desire to take over Greenland, drawing widespread pushback including from NATO ally Denmark, which governs the Arctic island nation.

Speaking aboard Air Force One, Trump fleshed out his vision for Venezuela after the American attack, saying he would allow oil companies access to its world's-largest reserves so they could reclaim oil he claims has been stolen.

“We’re going to take our oil back,” he said during a 40 minute talk with reporters.

On when elections might be held, he said "Well we're going to run everything. We're going to run it, fix it. We'll have elections at the right time."

Asked who was currently in charge of Venezuela, Trump said, "We're dealing with the people. We're dealing with the people that just got sworn in. And don't ask me who's in charge, because I'll give you an answer, and it'll be very controversial."

Pressed on what that meant, he added, "It means we're in charge."

Venezuela's supreme court declared Rodríguez would immediately assume the leadership after U.S. forces captured Maduro and brought him to New York, where he will appear in court Monday on narco-terrorism charges.

Trump said he had not spoken with Rodriguez "but other people have" and that "she's cooperating."

He earlier told The Atlantic that “if she doesn’t do what’s right, she is going to pay a very big price, probably bigger than Maduro.” He reiterated this aboard Air Force One.

"I just say that she will face a situation probably worse than Maduro. Because, you know, Maduro gave up immediately," he said. "He gave up, and he did the right thing, but he gave up. So we were actually... we were so effective. And it was so fast and violent. It was very violent, but we were so effective. He raised his hands, he gave up."

Trump said Saturday that Rodríguez had a “gracious” conversation with Secretary of State Marco Rubio. “She said, ‘We’ll do whatever you need,’” he said, “But she really doesn’t have a choice. We’re going to have this done right.”

Later on Saturday, though, Rodríguez said Maduro was “the only president of Venezuela” and called for his “immediate liberation.”

Trump said he would be asking Rodríguez to give “total access” to oil companies.

Oil prices swung Sunday evening, as investors and traders weighed the market forces that could be unleashed by Trump’s attack and his comments about what could be next for Venezuela and its massive oil reserves.

Trump claims that Venezuela "stole" U.S. oil because of the role American companies played in developing the country's petroleum industry in the early 1900s. Later in the 20th century, Venezuela then nationalized the industry and vastly reduced production.

"The country is a mess. It's been horribly run. The oil is just flowing at a very low level," Trump said. "So we're going to have the big oil companies go in, and they're going to fix the infrastructure. They're going to invest money. We're not going to invest anything. We're going to just take care of the country. We're going to cherish the country. We're going to take care, more importantly, of the people, including Venezuelans."

And asked if he had reversed his previous opposition to nation-building, he added, "We're in the business of having countries around us that are viable and successful, and where the oil is allowed to freely come out, because that's good, it gets the prices down. That's good for our country."

He also hinted at the possibility of future strikes, saying the U.S. is “ready to stage a second and much larger attack if we need to.”

In a Spanish-language statement, Rodríguez wrote, "President Donald Trump: Our people and our region deserve peace and dialogue, not war. That has always been President Nicolás Maduro’s position, and it is the position of all of Venezuela at this moment."

"That is the Venezuela I believe in and have dedicated my life to. My dream is for Venezuela to be a great power where all good Venezuelans can come together," she added.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/venezuela-trump-maduro-rcna252177

It's crazy to think that he admitted out loud that his main reason for removing Manduro was to increase oil production. If you let him ramble on long enough grains of truth will eventually come out.

Won't go to congress but will go to the multi nationals

Trump says he tipped off oil companies on Venezuela attack
by Sarah Fortinsky - 01/05/26 10:24 AM ET




President Trump said Sunday that he spoke to oil companies ahead of the operation in Venezuela and claimed they’re eager to revitalize the industry in the South American nation.

Reporters on Air Force One asked the president if he spoke to American oil companies to tip them off before U.S. forces captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro on Saturday.


Trump nodded and said he spoke to the companies “before and after” the operation.

“And they want to go in, and they’re going to do a great job for the people of Venezuela, and they’re going to represent us well,” Trump continued.

Trump signaled Saturday that his desire to take over the Venezuelan oil industry played a role in his decision to greenlight the operation to capture Maduro.

He said American companies would be able to tap into the country’s significant oil reserves, telling reporters, “We’re going to be taking out a tremendous amount of wealth out of the ground.”

Chevron remains the only large oil company operating in Venezuela, after other major international operators were forced out of the country in the early 2000s, when then-President Hugo Chávez took steps to deepen the nationalization of the oil industry. Today, Venezuela has the world’s largest proven crude oil reserves, accounting for 17 percent of global reserves, but it produces less than 1 percent of the world’s oil supply, the AP reported.

Sign up for the Morning Report
The latest in politics and policy. Direct to your inbox.

Email address
By signing up, I agree to the Terms of Use, have reviewed the Privacy Policy, and to receive personalized offers and communications via email, on-site notifications, and targeted advertising using my email address from The Hill, Nexstar Media Inc., and its affiliates

“Chevron remains focused on the safety and wellbeing of our employees, as well as the integrity of our assets. We continue to operate in full compliance with all relevant laws and regulations,” Chevron spokesperson Bill Turenne told the AP.


As the president announced the U.S. would take charge in Venezuela for the foreseeable future, he justified the cost of such a move by pointing to the oil reserves.

“It won’t cost us anything, because the money coming out of the ground is very substantial,” Trump said, adding, “We’re going to get reimbursed for everything that we spend.”

Experts are warning that revitalizing the oil industry could take years and significant financial investments, after the country faced years of neglect and international sanctions, The Associated Press reported. But others have said they’re optimistic Venezuela could more than double its current output of oil and return to its historic levels.

Trump, on Sunday, acknowledged the challenges ahead.

“The infrastructure is rusty, rotten. Most of it unusable. It’s old, it’s broken. You see pipes laying all over the ground. Nothing’s been invested for years,” Trump said.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5672735-trump-venezuela-oil-industry/

And for those of you swallowing the lies about Greenland and trumps desire to have it.

Greenland: US Attacking NATO Ally Would Be End Of 'Everything', Says Danish PM
By AFP - Agence France Presse
Jan 05, 2026, 11:10 am EST


Share

Resize

Reprints
Any US attack on a NATO ally would be the end of "everything", Denmark's prime minister warned Monday, after US President Donald Trump repeated his desire to annex Greenland.

"If the United States decides to militarily attack another NATO country, then everything would stop -- that includes NATO and therefore post-World War II security," Mette Frederiksen told Danish television network TV2.

She said her government was doing "all that is possible so that is not the case".

cbw/rmb/jxb

We are NATO the European Countries are nothing really. They need us not vice versa.

Now I remember you. You played Sgt. Shultz in one of my favorite sitcoms!

I managed to get through 2 and 1/2 minutes. I listened a couple of lies that have been propagated by Trump and the far right. Claims are wholly unproven and untrue.

So this goes down just like the condoms for hamas ... Lies, spread and spammed.

Bottom line is no one is disputing. He was a bad actor. The issue is the illegality of the military operation and removing by force the head of an sovereign country.

Just destroys her logic.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-democrats-trump-venezuela-b2894314.html

Who knew she could be so right ?

As he stammers while making excuses.