U.S. Military Escalation Against Venezuela: Legal and Human Rights Implications Leading Up to Maduro’s Capture

Author: Kate Minichiello

January 13, 2026

In the last four months of 2025, continued strikes and seizures by the United States on Venezuelan boats and oil tankers filled the news. On January 3rd, 2026, the U.S. captured the Venezuelan leader, Nicolas Maduro, in an unprecedented operation. Below is an analysis of the political, legal, and human rights implications of the strikes, seizures, and arrest.

[Image source: Deccan Herald]

Nicolas Maduro took power in Venezuela in March 2013, leading an authoritarian regime. The United States, along with more than 50 other countries, refuses to recognize him as a legitimately elected leader because of suspected election fraud. Maduro is wanted in the U.S. for narcoterrorism, and on August 7th, 2025, Attorney General Pam Bondi announced a $50 million reward for information leading to his arrest (Pozzebon). Furthermore, military personnel, ships, and submarines have been deployed to Caribbean waters. 

The Trump administration claims that Maduro is the head of Cartel de los Soles, a drug trafficking organization that has now been classified by the U.S. State Department as a terrorist organization. The Cartel de los Soles is “a term used to describe groups within Venezuela’s armed forces implicated in a wide range of criminal activities, including gasoline smuggling, illegal mining, and other corruption schemes – most notably drug trafficking” (InSight Crime). Maduro has denied involvement, and the administration has yet to release credible evidence linking him to the organization. Notably, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime does not label Venezuela as a cocaine-producing country, and the United States Drug Enforcement Agency annual report does not mention Venezuela in relation to cocaine production either (Pozzebon). However, the U.S. administration claims it is a major transit country. According to the U.S. State Department’s website:

“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” (State.gov).

On September 2nd, the Trump Administration carried out its first strike on a Venezuelan boat allegedly carrying drugs (Finley et al.). The attack is now under investigation following  reports that two survivors were killed in a follow-up strike. Republican Congressmen have shown consistent support for the strikes until recent reports surfaced about the follow-up strike, leading some to question its legality and purpose. Thom Tillis, a Republican Senator from North Carolina said, “I didn’t give a damn who it was … whoever knowingly violated — that was a violation of ethical, moral and legal code” (O'Brien et al.). Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, a Democrat from the Armed Services Committee, criticized the legality of the attack, saying the administration is not “empowered to hunt down suspected criminals and kill them without trial” (Finley et al.). 

Human rights organizations and government officials continue to question the legality of the strikes as the administration carried out more on September 13th and 19th, October 3rd and 14th, and so on (Finley et al.). In early October of 2025, the U.S. declared that it was engaging in an armed conflict against drug cartels (Finley et al.). On October 8th, a bill that was intended to require congressional approval for further strikes was shot down in the Senate by Republicans. On October 31st, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights called for an investigation into the military strikes. Venezuelan boats were continuously attacked throughout December, with no signs of stopping. The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) carried out its first land strike on Venezuela on December 29th, claiming the dock that was hit was used by boats that transported narcotics (Finley). As of December 30th, there have been 30 known strikes resulting in over 100 people killed (Finley et al.).

The administration has recently claimed that drug trafficking is funded by oil production and exportation. Two of the most prominent U.S. adversaries, Russia and China, are recipients of this oil, making them important stakeholders in this conflict (Finley et al.). Venezuela has one of the largest crude oil reserves in the world. Crude oil is used to produce diesel, making it an important resource not only for civilian gas but also for military fuel. China condemned U.S. acts towards Venezuela, saying they violated international law. Moscow continues to back Venezuela with a foreign ministry statement that “reaffirmed its full support for and solidarity with the Venezuelan leadership and people in the current context” (Al Jazeera). The growing strength of the U.S. naval blockade against oil tankers increased the attention from U.S. adversaries, raising international tensions.

In early December, U.S. forces seized a sanctioned oil tanker off the Venezuelan coast. Pam Bondi stated “for multiple years, the oil tanker has been sanctioned by the United States due to its involvement in an illicit oil shipping network supporting foreign terrorist organizations” (Madhani et al.). The Venezuelan government called it “a blatant theft and an act of international piracy” (Madhani et al.). 

Early on in the conflict, Maduro claimed Trump’s real motivation was to pressure him out of office. The seizures of sanctioned oil tankers and continued conversation about oil have prompted Democrats to question the true motivations. A Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Chris Van Hollen, believed it was about regime change. He claimed that the U.S. seizing oil tankers “shows that their whole cover story — that this is about interdicting drugs — is a big lie” and “this is just one more piece of evidence that this is really about regime change — by force” (Mahdani et al.). Naval historian and author Vincent P. O'Hara explained that the seizure is an attempt to deter further Venezuelan maritime traffic and to destroy their economy (Madhani et al.). According to an AI maritime tracker, in early December, “of more than 30 sanctioned tankers that operate in Venezuelan waters, many are now sheltering in the Indian Ocean in order to avoid interdiction” (Roth and Rogero). 

Initially, Trump was careful to express motives behind the attacks other than drugs. However, comments from his cabinet suggested additional motives. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said, “It is clear that the current status quo with the Venezuelan regime is intolerable for the United States. So, yes, our goal is to change that dynamic” (Roth and Rogero). Furthermore, Chief of Staff Susie Wiles said Trump “wants to keep on blowing boats up until Maduro cries uncle” (Roth and Rogero).

On December 20th, just days after Trump announced a blockade of all sanctioned oil tankers entering or leaving Venezuela, the U.S. seized a second oil tanker (Osgood). Democratic Representative Jason Crow said his “biggest fear is this is exactly how wars start and how conflicts escalate out of control” and it is being carried out “without consultation with Congress” (Finley et al.).

As the Trump Administration continued to attack Venezuelan boats, grow the maritime blockade, and seize oil tankers, the human rights of Venezuelan people were threatened. Those on the boats are killed without due process and without clear and public evidence. The administration failed to publicly identify who was on each boat. If there is evidence connecting the boats to drug trafficking, the legal response is interdiction and detention instead of death. The U.S. government claimed it was in an armed conflict, which would make its actions lawful under international humanitarian law. However, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights said the U.S. was not in an armed conflict, and instead, it was a matter of public order. In cases considered fights against drugs, the military action must be out of defense or in response to an imminent threat to life, neither of which the U.S. qualified for (WOLA Team).

In the first legal challenge against the U.S. airstrikes, the family of a Colombian citizen killed in such an airstrike, Alejandro Carranza Medina, brought a complaint to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR). They expressed that “he was denied his rights under international law to due process and a fair trial” (Wendler). The commission has investigated human rights violations across the Western Hemisphere for some time now, but the U.S. has not ratified the enforcement treaty, so it is not legally binding. However, as a consistent international advocate for the rule of law, it is in the interests of the U.S. to avoid an adverse finding. The attorney of the man’s relatives understands the lack of enforcement available through the IACHR, but hopes bringing “the case before the commission, combined with public pressure, could force the U.S. to do something” (Wendler).

On January 3rd, 2026, the U.S. captured Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, from the capital on cocaine trafficking charges. Following the operation, Vice President Delcy Rodriguez was sworn in as acting President. However, Trump said “We’re going to run the country now”(Inskeep). The U.S. claims its initial position will mainly consist of running the Venezuelan oil industry and working with the newly appointed leader to govern the country. 

Although the operation is largely unprecedented, some find it reminds them of a U.S. move roughly 36 years ago (McPherson). In 1989, the U.S. launched an operation to seize the leader of Panama who was also wanted under drug charges. However, since then U.S. foreign policy has drastically changed, and the seizure of Maduro is a clear break from the recent relations with South America. Expert on U.S.-Latin relations, Alan McPherson, says it is a form of ad hoc imperialism. Although there are similarities to the seizure of Panama’s leader over 35 years ago, McPherson says this is largely unprecedented because the U.S. military has “Never…directly intervened in South America to effect regime change. All of Washington’s previous direct actions were in smaller, closer countries in Central America or the Caribbean”. According to McPherson, the operation also points to the idea that the airstrikes and oil tanker seizures were always about regime change and never about the transportation of drugs to U.S. shores. 

The operation may have some international implications, beyond Venezuela. If this is a signal of a new foreign policy towards Latin America, Americans may see “a renewed wave of hardline, security-driven responses to organized crime, with potential windfalls for criminal actors but significant costs in terms of governance, human rights and regional stability” (“What Are the Implications…”). 

Maduro's capture may also lead China to feel more comfortable performing aggressive moves towards Taiwan (Hawkins). Beijing has long had plans for Taiwan but has refrained from aggressive action, largely because of consequences from the U.S. Some experts believe the operation signals a change in international norms, making a similar move more acceptable. Contrastingly, some experts argue that the situations of U.S-Venezuela and China-Taiwan hold too many differences to be comparable. Additionally, the Venezuelan defense systems are largely Chinese, possibly leading Beijing to question their capabilities in relation to the U.S. Overall, it remains contested whether the operation will deter or provoke similar aggressive actions by China and around the rest of the globe (Hawkins).

While the capture of Maduro was welcomed by many Venezuelans as a moment of relief after years of repression, the broader human rights situation for civilians remains uncertain in the aftermath of prolonged strikes, maritime interdictions, and economic disruption. Ensuring protections for life, due process, and personal security will be essential to ensure the transition results in lasting stability. 

---

Glossary

• Armed conflict: a resort to armed force between states, or protracted armed violence between governmental authorities and organized armed groups, or between such groups.

• Authoritarian: relating to or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people.

• Blockade: the isolation by a warring nation of an enemy area by troops or warships to prevent passage of persons or supplies; more broadly, a restrictive measure designed to obstruct the commerce and communications of an unfriendly nation.

• Cartel: a combination of independent commercial or industrial enterprises designed to limit competition or fix prices.

• Commission: a group of persons directed to perform some duty; a government agency having administrative, legislative, or judicial powers.

• Detention: a holding in custody; the state of being detained, especially a period of temporary custody prior to a trial or hearing.

• Due process: a course of formal proceedings established for the enforcement and protection of private rights.

• Fair trial: a trial marked by impartiality and honesty and conducted through formal legal proceedings to determine the matter in issue, with basic procedural protections for the accused.

• FARC: the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, a former guerrilla organization in Colombia that was involved for decades in armed conflict and illicit economies.

• Human rights: the basic rights to fair and moral treatment that every person is believed to have.

• Imminent: ready to take place; happening soon.

• Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR): a regional human rights body in the Americas that receives and reviews petitions alleging human rights violations.

• Interdiction: the act or an instance of interdicting, including interdiction of drugs.

• International humanitarian law: the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict.

• Legally binding: creating an obligation that must be followed as a matter of law and can carry legal consequences if not complied with.

• Maritime: of, relating to, or bordering on the sea.

• Militia: a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency.

• Multilateral: involving or participated in by more than two nations or parties.

• Narcoterrorism: terrorism in which narcotics are used to finance operations and achieve political goals.

• Narcotic: a drug that in moderate doses dulls the senses, relieves pain, and induces profound sleep, and can be addictive.

• Piracy: an act of robbery on the high seas; robbery on the sea.

• Public order: the condition of public peace, safety, and orderly functioning of society; in legal debates, it can describe a law-enforcement framework rather than a wartime framework.

• Ratify: to approve and sanction formally.

• Regime change: a complete change of government, especially one brought about by force.

• Repression: the action or process of repressing, including repression of unpopular opinions.

• Rule of law: the principle that legal rules and processes govern a society and that government actors are bound by and accountable under the law.

• Sanction (noun): an official order that limits trade, contact, etc. with a particular country, in order to make it do something such as obeying international law.

• Sanction (verb): to give effective or authoritative approval or consent to; to impose a penalty or economically or militarily coercive measures.

• Seizure: the act, action, or process of seizing, including taking possession of person or property by legal process.

• Stakeholder: a person such as an employee, customer, or citizen who is involved with an organization, society, etc. and therefore has responsibilities toward it and an interest in its success.

• Terrorism: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.

• Terrorist: relating to, or characteristic of terrorists or terrorism; involving violent acts of terror.

• Treaty: a contract in writing between two or more political authorities formally signed and usually ratified by the lawmaking authority of the state.

• Trafficking: the act of buying or selling usually illegal goods.

• United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights: the senior United Nations official and office responsible for promoting and protecting human rights worldwide.

---

References

1. Al Jazeera. (2025, December 23). Trump warns maduro not to “play tough” as Russia, China back venezuela. Al Jazeera. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/12/23/trump-warns-maduro-not-to-play-tough-as-china-russia-back-venezuela 

2. “Cartel of the Suns.” InSight Crime, 1 Oct. 2025, insightcrime.org/venezuela-organized-crime-news/cartel-de-los-soles-profile/. 

3. Finley, Ben, et al. “A Timeline of the US Military’s Buildup near Venezuela and Attacks on Alleged Drug-Smuggling Boats.” WRAL.Com, WRAL, 19 Dec. 2025, www.wral.com/news/ap/91e24-a-timeline-of-the-us-militarys-buildup-near-venezuela-and-attacks-on-alleged-drug-smuggling-boats/. 

4. Finley, Ben, et al. “Trump’s Blockade of Sanctioned Venezuelan Oil Raises New Questions about Legality.” PBS, Public Broadcasting Service, 19 Dec. 2025, www.pbs.org/newshour/world/trumps-blockade-of-sanctioned-venezuelan-oil-raises-new-questions-about-legality. 

5. Hawkins, Amy. “What Does the US Raid in Venezuela Mean for China’s Designs on Taiwan?” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 6 Jan. 2026, www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jan/06/what-us-action-in-venezuela-means-for-taiwan. Accessed 09 Jan. 2026.

6. Madhani, Aamer, et al. “US Has Seized an Oil Tanker off the Coast of Venezuela, Trump Says.” AP News, AP News, 11 Dec. 2025, apnews.com/article/trump-tanker-seized-venezuela-maduro-0a148ba01684fc6ce1a228dd276732c0 

7. McPherson, A. (2026, January 6). A predawn OP in Latin America? the US has been here before, but the seizure of Venezuela’s Maduro is still unprecedented. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/a-predawn-op-in-latin-america-the-us-has-been-here-before-but-the-seizure-of-venezuelas-maduro-is-still-unprecedented-272664 

8. “Nicolás Moros Maduro.” U.S. Department of State, U.S. Department of State, 7 Aug. 2025, www.state.gov/nicolas-maduro-moros. 

9. Osgood, Brian. “US Seizes Second Oil Tanker off Venezuela’s Coast.” Aljazeera, 20 Dec. 2025, www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/12/20/us-seizes-second-oil-vessel-off-venezuela-coast-officials-say. 

10. O’Brien, Connor, et al. “Second Boat Strike Tests GOP Loyalty to Trump.” Politico, 2 Dec. 2025, www.politico.com/news/2025/12/02/boat-strike-republican-trump-loyalty-00673439. 

11. Pozzebon, Stefano. “Trump Claims Venezuela’s Maduro Is a Drug-Trafficking Threat to the US. Does the Data Back Him Up?” CNN, Cable News Network, 1 Sept. 2025, www.cnn.com/2025/09/01/americas/trump-venezuela-maduro-drug-threat-analysis-intl-latam. 

12. Roth, Andrew, and Tiago Rogero. “Trump and Top Aides Refuse to Rule out War with Venezuela.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 19 Dec. 2025, www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/dec/19/trump-venezuela-war. 

13. Wendler, Jacob. “US Airstrike in Caribbean Draws Complaint before Human Rights Watchdog .” Politico, 2 Dec. 2025, www.politico.com/news/2025/12/02/us-caribbean-airstrike-watchdog-complaint-00673916. 

14. What are the implications of the US intervention in Venezuela for organized crime?. Global Initiative. (2026, January 6). https://globalinitiative.net/analysis/what-are-the-implications-of-the-us-intervention-in-venezuela-for-organized-crime/ 

15. WOLA Team. (2025, November 7). 5 things you should know about the events between Venezuela and the United States. WOLA. https://www.wola.org/analysis/test-5-things-you-should-know-about-the-events-between-venezuela-and-the-united-states/