Claims the U.S. is bombing Venezuela, that 70% of Americans oppose war with Venezuela, and that the motive is to steal oil
Executive summary
The United States carried out a large-scale military operation against Venezuela on 3 January 2026 that included airstrikes across northern Venezuela and the capture and removal of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, to the United States, a sequence reported widely by major outlets and documented in contemporaneous summaries [1] [2] [3]. Polling in the days around the operation shows a clear majority of Americans opposed to significant military intervention in Venezuela in various formulations, though no single, definitive poll gives the exact “70% oppose” figure as a stable constant across questions [4] [5] [6] [7]. The Trump administration has publicly linked the action to narcotics and law‑enforcement justifications while simultaneously making repeated, explicit statements about accessing and controlling Venezuelan oil, creating competing narratives about motive [8] [1] [9] [10].
1. What happened: bombs, a raid and a president flown out
Multiple news organizations and contemporaneous summaries describe explosions and low‑flying aircraft over Caracas and other northern Venezuelan locations during an overnight U.S. operation codenamed Operation Absolute Resolve, followed by the capture and transfer of Maduro and Flores to U.S. custody, and reports of U.S. forces striking infrastructure including alleged drug‑trafficking sites in prior weeks [1] [3] [8] [11].
2. Public opinion: a majority opposed, but not a single uniform number
Polling aggregated by Reuters/Ipsos, YouGov, Quinnipiac and others in late 2025 and immediately after the raid shows plurality or majority opposition to U.S. military action against Venezuela in different question wordings — for example, Reuters/Ipsos found one in three Americans approved of the strike and 72% expressed worry about U.S. involvement, Quinnipiac reported 63% opposed military action, and earlier YouGov/Economist items showed 60% oppose invasive military force — illustrating consistent majority reluctance but variation by wording and timing rather than a single immutable “70% oppose” figure [4] [5] [6] [7].
3. Motive: evidence that oil was explicitly on the table
Official statements, on‑the‑record reporting and subsequent policy moves show oil was explicitly part of the administration’s calculus: President Trump and senior officials publicly linked the operation to disrupting drug trafficking and bringing Maduro to justice while also saying the U.S. would “run” Venezuela and promising U.S. involvement in rebuilding and benefiting from Venezuelan oil, including announcements about tens of millions of barrels being turned over and talks about using Venezuelan crude for U.S. needs — all indicating oil was a declared interest of the operation [1] [8] [9] [12] [13] [10].
4. Competing narratives, legal questions and geopolitical stakes
Legal scholars and international actors contested the U.S. justification: experts argued a unilateral strike and capture likely violate the UN Charter absent imminent self‑defense, while many foreign governments condemned the operation as a breach of sovereignty and warned of dangerous precedents; the U.S. framed it as law‑enforcement and anti‑narcotics action, creating a tension between criminal‑justice rhetoric and strategic economic aims such as securing energy resources [14] [15] [2] [16] [17].
5. Bottom line: claims vs. evidence
The claim that the U.S. bombed Venezuela is substantiated by multiple mainstream reports documenting strikes and a raid that removed Maduro from power [1] [3] [8]; the claim that “70% of Americans oppose war” is an oversimplification — polling consistently shows a clear majority opposed or worried about U.S. military involvement but percentages vary by poll and question framing [4] [5] [6] [7]; and the motive “to steal oil” is too reductive but grounded in fact insofar as U.S. officials and the president publicly linked the operation to gaining access to Venezuelan oil and have pursued concrete steps toward controlling oil flows and contracts, even as they also presented anti‑drug and legal rationales [9] [13] [8] [1]. Reporting does not definitively judge private intent beyond statements and policy moves, and the evidence shows overlapping motives — strategic, criminal‑justice, and economic — rather than a single, undisputed motive.