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.”
surely not -- didn't China read the Maga stooge's post???? China is IMPRESSED and in AWE !! LMAO.
Updates Venezuelan Foreign Minister Yvan Gil claims Maduro remains in charge, while his Vice President Delcy Rodriguez reportedly left the country for Russia.
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.
Quote
“We’re going to have our very large United States oil companies — the biggest anywhere in the world — go in, spend billions of dollars, fix the badly broken infrastructure, the oil infrastructure,” Trump said at a news conference at Mar-a-Lago.
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!
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
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.
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.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn.
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?
The more things change the more they stay the same.
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?
If practical/possible, yes. That said, it isn't so it's a moot point to ponder.
There was nothing unlawful about Saturdays actions.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn.
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.
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.
The more things change the more they stay the same.
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?
Quote
Venezuela has been a bad actor for 25 years. I see it as skimming the scum. It's about time.
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.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
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.
The more things change the more they stay the same.
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.
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?
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
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.
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!!!
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples' money." Margarat Thatcher
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.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
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.
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples' money." Margarat Thatcher
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:
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.
Last edited by mgh888; 01/05/2610:51 AM.
The more things change the more they stay the same.
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.
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.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
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.
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".
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.
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples' money." Margarat Thatcher
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
