On January 5, 2026, the world watched as President Donald Trump launched a military campaign in Venezuela, culminating in the dramatic seizure and swift extradition of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro to the United States. The operation, justified by Washington on grounds of criminal charges and threats to regional security, has sent shockwaves through international politics, upended diplomatic agendas, and reignited debates about America's role on the world stage.
According to Bloomberg, the immediate impact in the United States was a sudden shift in the political conversation. Issues that had been dominating headlines—such as affordability, questions about President Trump’s age, and the ongoing fallout from the Epstein files—were abruptly sidelined. The focus turned squarely to Venezuela and the implications of this bold military intervention. Yet, as Professor Peter Trubowitz explained in an interview, "That is unlikely to last for long. Nor is Trump likely to get much of a bump in the polls from the seizure of Venezuela’s leader, Nicolás Maduro."
In fact, public sentiment in the U.S. has been largely resistant to such military actions. Before the invasion, Americans were overwhelmingly opposed to the idea of the Trump administration taking military action against Venezuela, especially with the explicit goal of removing Maduro from power. This opposition cut across party lines and even included significant portions of Trump’s own MAGA base, many of whom have long opposed U.S. military interventionism and believed Trump shared their skepticism. As Trubowitz noted, "Most are likely to continue viewing the invasion as unwise, if not illegal, including those in Trump’s MAGA coalition who oppose US military interventionism and voted for him thinking that he did too."
Internationally, the repercussions have been immediate and far-reaching. The operation has further eroded what remains of the rules-based international order—an order built on the foundational principle that countries do not attack others without provocation. This principle has guided U.S. foreign policy for decades, underpinning its opposition to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 and its ongoing efforts to deter China from using military force against Taiwan. As Trubowitz emphasized to Bloomberg, "Trump’s actions are likely to further erode an already weakened rules-based international order, where the first 'thou shalt not' rule is that countries do not attack other nations without any kind of provocation."
The timing of the U.S. action has also had a destabilizing effect in East Asia. According to reporting from Korea, North Korea responded to the detention of Maduro by firing ballistic missiles on January 4, 2026, a move widely interpreted as a show of displeasure with Washington’s assertiveness and a warning to regional actors. This show of force by Pyongyang further complicated diplomatic efforts in the region, especially for South Korea, which was preparing for a high-stakes Korea-China summit scheduled for January 5. The detention of Maduro, in the words of Korea’s PARK YONG-SEOK, "unsettled China and complicated South Korea's diplomatic position ahead of the Korea-China summit."
China, for its part, has been visibly unsettled by the U.S. operation. While official statements have been measured, there is little doubt among analysts that Beijing views the American intervention as a troubling precedent. Not only does it raise questions about the security of sovereign governments in the face of U.S. power, but it also brings into sharp relief the ongoing competition for influence in Latin America and the strategic value of Venezuela’s vast oil reserves. As many analysts cited by Korea’s coverage have pointed out, "Venezuela's vast oil reserves were an underlying motive for the U.S. action," even as Washington insists the operation was about criminal charges and regional security.
For the Venezuelan people, the removal of Maduro is a moment of profound uncertainty. There is little doubt that many in Venezuela will welcome the end of Maduro’s rule, given years of economic hardship, political repression, and international isolation. Yet, as Trubowitz warned, "Trump has uncorked something that could easily spray all over the place." The hope among some in the Trump administration is that this operation will mirror the U.S. invasion of Panama in 1989, when American forces toppled Manuel Noriega and, after a swift exit, the country experienced a period of relative stability and improvement.
However, there are equally strong fears that the outcome could resemble the far more disastrous U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, which led to years of violence, instability, and suffering. The specter of Iraq looms large in the minds of policymakers and observers alike, serving as a cautionary tale about the unpredictable consequences of regime change by force. As Trubowitz reflected, "That invasion quickly went south, leaving a trail of death, destruction, and instability behind for years to come."
The U.S. justification for the operation—criminal charges against Maduro and claims of threats to regional security—has done little to quell skepticism about the true motives behind the intervention. Many international analysts remain convinced that Venezuela’s oil wealth was a significant, if unspoken, factor in Washington’s calculations. This perception has only fueled further distrust of U.S. intentions abroad, particularly among countries that have long been wary of American influence in their internal affairs.
Back in Washington, the political calculus is complex. While the military campaign has temporarily shifted the spotlight away from domestic troubles, it is unlikely to deliver lasting political gains for President Trump. The American public’s wariness of foreign military entanglements remains strong, and any attempt to draw parallels with past "successful" interventions is fraught with risk. Indeed, the memory of Iraq, and the long shadow it casts over U.S. foreign policy, is a constant reminder that even the best-laid plans can go awry.
Meanwhile, the international order faces yet another test. The United States, once the principal architect and guarantor of the rules-based system, now finds itself accused of the very kind of unilateral aggression it has long condemned. This contradiction not only undermines America’s credibility on the world stage but also emboldens other powers to challenge the norms that have governed international relations for decades.
As the dust settles in Caracas and the world waits to see what comes next, one thing is clear: the U.S. military campaign in Venezuela has set off a chain reaction that will reverberate far beyond the borders of either country. The coming weeks and months will reveal whether this bold gamble pays off—or whether it becomes another cautionary chapter in the long, complicated history of American intervention abroad.