Explain the situation regarding Trump and Venezuela, and how other countries/states are mad about it.
Executive summary
President Donald Trump ordered a dramatic U.S. military operation that captured Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro and signaled that the United States would “run” Venezuela, a move framed by his team as targeting narcotrafficking and restoring stability but widely condemned as a breach of sovereignty and international law [1] [2]. The strike has split global opinion: some U.S. domestic supporters and parts of the Venezuelan diaspora celebrated, while a large coalition of states, international institutions and legal experts decried the action and warned of regional instability [2] [3] [4].
1. The operation and Washington’s stated aims
The Trump administration executed a “large-scale” strike that seized Maduro and his wife and immediately set about installing and backing an interim leadership, publicly asserting that U.S. leverage — including a naval presence, oil sanctions and tanker blockades — would enforce Washington’s preferred political and energy outcomes in Caracas [2] [1] [5].
2. Legal and institutional pushback: allies, the U.N. and experts
International bodies and many U.S. allies criticized the action as violating the U.N. Charter and Venezuelan sovereignty, with U.N. Secretary‑General Antonio Guterres and numerous countries calling emergency meetings and warning that the strikes undermine international law and multilateral institutions [6] [7] [8].
3. Latin American and global indignation: politics and principle
Leaders across Latin America and beyond objected strongly: Brazil’s Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva called the attack “unacceptable,” Colombia, Mexico, Spain and others jointly voiced deep concern, and regional statements framed the intervention as contravening the principle of self-determination and risking broader instability [9] [4] [3].
4. Rival narratives and legal defenses from sympathetic outlets
Proponents argue the operation was lawful because Washington no longer recognizes Nicolás Maduro as Venezuela’s legitimate head of state, claiming that recognition of an alternative government supplies consent for U.S. action and that Maduro’s alleged drug‑trafficking and repression justified extraordinary measures — an interpretation advanced in conservative commentary and some U.S. officials [10] [7].
5. Geopolitical fallout: China, Russia, and the erosion of norms
Beijing and Moscow sharply condemned the U.S. strike as hegemonic aggression that violates sovereignty and threatens regional security, using the episode to criticize U.S. unilateralism and to rally support for a rules-based order they argue Washington has jeopardized [11] [12] [3].
6. Domestic fractures and the “day after” vacuum
Inside the U.S., the operation exposed partisan and institutional tensions: while a portion of Republicans and some Americans applauded, majorities across party lines expressed anxiety about prolonged involvement and many Democratic leaders and some Senate Republicans pressed for clearer legal authorization and a credible post‑intervention plan [12] [2] [4].
7. Motives, hidden agendas and the oil question
Critics point to implicit agendas: Trump’s public focus on Venezuelan oil and reported plans to revive Venezuelan production under American oversight raised accusations of resource-driven intervention and neocolonialist aims, a charge echoed by Caracas and some international commentators [5] [2] [12].
8. Near-term risks: instability, armed groups and long occupation concerns
Analysts warn that the operation may not have dismantled Maduro’s inner circle and could empower hardliners or armed groups (colectivos, ELN) while dragging the U.S. into a protracted occupation or governance role that risks violence and regional escalation [2] [12].
9. Bottom line: a contested triumph with global costs
The capture of Maduro has delivered Trump a short‑term political and strategic boost among supporters, but the episode has also deepened international rifts, provoked legal rebukes, mobilized regional condemnation, and left unanswered questions about legality, long‑term governance and the true motivations behind U.S. actions [2] [6] [12].