By Sergio Gómez Maseri, EL TIEMPO, January 4, 2026
(Translated by Eunice Gibson, CSN Volunteer Translator)
More than closing a period—which in a certain sense, it did—the shock the United States gave Venezuela this weekend with its capture of Nicholás Maduro, opened several fronts simultaneously, with unpredictable consequences, not only in the region, but in the whole world. At least four demand our attention.
1. A Debate That Reopens Old Wounds in Latin America
In a region marked by the recollection of United States interventions in the 20th century, the military attack on Venezuela immediately divided the region and set off a debate about sovereignty, the principles of non-intervention, and the so-called “just cause” to remove the leader of a regime considered illegitimate.
Two clear lines are opened in this argument. On the one hand, the governments and leaders that justify the action by the United States against Venezuela claim that it constitutes an extreme exception; they argue that Maduro not only refused to recognize the results of the 2024 election, but that he also headed an authoritarian regime that they accuse of drug trafficking, being responsible for the economic and institutional collapse of the country, and for a migration crisis that extends worldwide.
From that perspective, the intervention would be the consequence of years of failed diplomacy and ineffective sanctions, and the only way to avoid indefinite perpetuation of Chavismo holding power. Governments aligned with Washington, like Argentina and Ecuador, interpret the operation as a signal that the United States will use its power to redefine the regional equilibrium and put an end to regimes it considers to be criminal.
At the other extreme are those who, without explicitly defending Maduro, believe that the operation crossed a dangerous threshold. Their criticism is focused on the precedent establishing the idea that the United States can intervene militarily in another country to capture its President, or any other person, with the claim that the person has unpaid debts to the legal system. Under that reasoning there lies a broader fear: that that criterion could be invoked in the future by other powers to justify similar actions in different settings.
“If the United States abrogates to itself the right to use military force to invade another country and capture a foreign leader it accuses of criminal conduct, what’s to keep China from claiming the same authority over the leadership of Taiwan? (. . .) Once that line is crossed, the rules that restrain global chaos will start to collapse, and authoritarian regimes will be the first to exploit it,” stated Senator Mark Warner, the ranking Democrat on the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee
2. The Day After in Venezuela
The second front centers on Venezuela and the enormous uncertainty about what might happen after Trump’s announcement that the U.S. would “run the country” and appoint a team charged with administering the process, without clarifying what that may mean exactly.
For now, the White House has indicated that it would work with remaining officials of the regime, particularly with Vice President Delcy Rodríguez, now the head of the nation, to begin the transition process.
That decision seems strategic, given that, in Washington, they believe that Maduro’s capture sent a powerful message to those remaining in power.
The plan will include commitments to a democratic transition, new elections, and opening the energy sector for U. S. oil companies. But at the same time, the administration recognizes an uncomfortable reality: even weakened, Chavismo still has operating control of the country, and without a total invasion, not on the table right now, it will be impossible to govern Venezuela.
Also weighing in that calculation is the previous failure of the opposition. Even though they won the election in 2024 with Edmundo González, they were unable to keep Maduro from refusing to acknowledge the election and thus staying in power. That’s why figures like the leader María Corina Machado have been left out of immediate plans.
“On paper, that sounds fantastic and it would be ideal. Delcy leads a peaceful transition process and there are free elections, the opposition wins, and Venezuela is stabilized. But the problems in the country are so much deeper and nobody is guaranteeing that the regime would even accept this even to gain some time,” said Adam Isacson, an expert on hemispheric security at WOLA (Washington Office on Latin America).
3. The Explosive Internal Debate in The United States.
A third line, not less important, has to do with U.S. politics. Although President Trump was initially applauded for the force of the operation, he has also been criticized for not seeking authorization by the Congress and, even more sensitive, having “appropriated” Venezuela’s many problems.
For years, Trump has built his whole political career on denouncing the so-called “endless wars” and promising an “America First!” policy concentrated on domestic priorities. Now he has to have an explanation for his base as to why this does not contradict this creed, and how and why the intervention is going to benefit them.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, a close Trump ally until very recently, threw the first stone when she warned that U. S. citizens are “sick of the way these governments spend money on operations for invasions and regime change while we’re looking at continuing increases in the cost of living, housing, and health care here in the U. S.”
And if the situation in Venezuela is prolonged those voices will probably keep getting louder. “What Trump has done is completely contradictory to what he’s been promising his most loyal base for ten years,” said Michael Shifter, former President of Inter-American Dialog. “Now he’s talking like an imperial President, at least in the Western Hemisphere, and about controlling other countries. I don’t think this is going to help him politically; better yet, I think he will pay a price,” Shifter added.
4. The Legal Front; Maduro in Court.
More silently, but equally significant, this will be the fourth front of the history that opens today in New York with the commencement of the legal case against Maduro in federal court.
He is charged with drug trafficking, conspiracy, and other crimes, and the case will be a landmark, a kind of “case of the century” that will strip bare the better part of the history of the corruption of the Venezuela regime in the last two decades and might touch on other leaders in the region. Although the case could take several months before a trial gets under way, there can be no doubt that the sight of Maduro in orange jail overalls[1] responding to a United States judge will have a much broader impact than would be felt in the tiny courtroom in Brooklyn where the case will be undertaken. Especially if he is sentenced to spend the rest of his days behind bars.
[1] In Estelle v. Williams, 425 US 501 (1976) the U.S. Supreme Court held that a trial defendant may not be compelled to appear at his jury trial dressed in a prison uniform. The Justices believed that this would be counter to the presumption of innocence.