Did USA just attack Venezuela? Why and who attacked first?
Executive summary
The United States launched a large-scale military operation against Venezuela on 3 January 2026, including airstrikes across Caracas and other northern states, and U.S. officials—most notably President Donald Trump—announced that Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro and his wife were captured and removed from the country [1] [2]. The attack is being justified publicly by the U.S. as part of a months-long pressure campaign against Maduro—framed by the administration alternately as counter‑narcotics and as targeting a “narco‑terrorist” regime—while regional governments and international bodies have condemned the strikes as violations of Venezuelan sovereignty and international law [3] [4] [5].
1. What happened: airstrikes, explosions and a high‑profile capture
In the early hours of 3 January explosions and the sound of low‑flying aircraft were reported across Caracas and in the states of Miranda, La Guaira and Aragua as U.S. forces carried out what the administration termed a “large‑scale strike,” with media and eyewitnesses showing damage at multiple military sites and footage circulating of helicopter and rocket strikes—reports that were followed by President Trump’s announcements that Maduro and his wife had been taken into U.S. custody [6] [1] [7] [2].
2. Who attacked first: U.S. initiation of the operation
Available reporting consistently attributes the initiation of the kinetic action to the United States: multiple outlets describe U.S. airstrikes and an operation codenamed—according to open sources—Operation Absolute Resolve, planned over months and greenlit by the president on the night before the strikes [8] [1] [9]. Venezuelan statements framed the events as an unprovoked U.S. aggression; there are no credible sources in the reporting provided that describe a Venezuelan-initiated attack that prompted U.S. strikes as self‑defense [6] [4].
3. Why the U.S. says it acted: narco‑trafficking, protecting U.S. interests and regime change signals
The Trump administration’s publicly stated rationales have evolved but center on alleging Maduro’s links to narcotics trafficking and framing the operation as necessary to protect U.S. security and personnel, with administration officials and the president saying removal of Maduro was an objective and suggesting U.S. companies would operate in Venezuela post‑operation—language that critics call explicit regime‑change and resource seizure rhetoric [3] [1] [2]. Analysts note the strikes followed months of pressure—seizures of vessels, strikes on boats, and other measures—which the U.S. presented as part of counter‑narcotics and national‑security actions [9] [10].
4. Regional and international reaction: rapid condemnation and alarm
Governments across Latin America and beyond reacted with alarm and division: Colombia and others condemned the strikes as violations of sovereignty and called emergency U.N. sessions, while leaders allied with Venezuela and critics of U.S. intervention labelled the operation a breach of international law and “state terrorism,” underscoring how the attack immediately polarized the region [5] [4] [11]. International legal experts quoted by Chatham House flagged the exceptional nature of a foreign military seizure of a sitting head of state and raised urgent questions about legality and precedent [3].
5. Competing narratives and evidentiary limits in early reporting
Open reporting contains some contested claims and limitations: U.S. government assertions about captures and on‑the‑ground effects come primarily from administration statements and social posts by the president, while Venezuela’s authorities likewise released denials, calls to resist, and limited on‑the‑ground updates—independent verification of some specific claims (for example, Maduro’s exact whereabouts or the detailed chain of command now in Caracas) was not yet publicly confirmed in the sources reviewed [2] [10] [7]. Independent outlets and think‑tank analysts warn that parts of the narrative remain fluid and politically charged [9] [3].
6. Bottom line: did the U.S. attack, and who acted first?
Based on the contemporaneous reporting, the U.S. initiated the military strikes on Venezuelan territory on 3 January 2026 and publicly declared the capture and removal of President Maduro, framing the operation as part of a sustained campaign against his government [1] [2] [8]. Alternative views—chiefly from Venezuela and allied states—characterize the events as an illegal act of imperialist aggression and warn of wider regional destabilization; independent verification of certain operational facts remains constrained in early, rapidly developing coverage [6] [4] [5].