Venezuela – Rodríguez assumes interim role as Maduro and his wife face U.S. custody

The United States’ military intervention in Venezuela has jolted an international order that was already under strain. President Donald Trump has defended the operation as both necessary and lawful, though critics at home and abroad argue that it further erodes norms governing sovereignty and the use of force.

The legal basis for the intervention remains contested. The U.S. President has cited his authority as commander in chief, while offering shifting justifications that include counter narcotics enforcement and the restoration of democracy. Many foreign governments and legal experts remain unconvinced.

Allies divided, Europe cautious 

French newspaper Le Monde captured the early diplomatic fallout from Caracas and the reactions that followed. According to its reporting, Venezuela’s allies, including China, Russia, Iran and Cuba, denounced the operation as an illegal act of aggression. Countries aligned with Washington largely avoided direct confrontation with Mr. Trump while urging restraint.

Some European leaders appeared more accommodating. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni both suggested that the operation could carry a degree of legitimacy, though neither explicitly endorsed the use of force.

At a press conference following the operation, Trump touted his ‘achievement’, declaring the U.S. would oversee Venezuela on an interim basis until a democratic transition, presumably elections, could take place. He also claimed that an American presence was already operating on the ground, though this could not independently be confirmed by international media at the time of this reporting.

Trump also dismissed any role for opposition leader María Corina Machado, a prominent figure in the anti Maduro movement and a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, effectively sidelining her from the transition he described.

Rodríguez steps in, Maduro status unresolved

Venezuela’s Supreme Court ordered Vice President Delcy Rodríguez, a long time ally of Nicolás Maduro, to assume presidential duties on an interim basis following Maduro’s capture. The court stopped short of formally removing the detained Venezuelan president from office, a step that under Venezuelan law would trigger elections within 30 days.

Trump claimed that Secretary of State Marco Rubio had spoken with Vice President Rodríguez about a possible transition. Venezuelan officials have not confirmed that such a call took place.

In a televised address, Rodríguez rejected reports that she had fled the country and insisted that Maduro remains Venezuela’s legitimate president. Beijing, Moscow and several other governments have demanded his immediate release.

Operation Absolute Resolve

U.S. media outlets have reported that the operation, code named Absolute Resolve, followed months of planning and coordination between military and intelligence agencies. According to these accounts, Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, were taken from their residence and flown to New York, where they are expected to face federal charges including terrorism and drug trafficking.

They are currently being held at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, a federal facility known for its poor conditions and high profile detainees.

The Pentagon has said that no U.S. service members were killed during the operation, though several were injured. One helicopter was reportedly hit but returned safely to base. Venezuelan authorities claim that civilian casualties number at least 40, a figure that has not been independently verified.

Political backlash at home

Democratic lawmakers have accused Trump of acting without congressional authorisation. Some Republicans have also expressed unease, arguing that the intervention contradicts the president’s long stated opposition to prolonged foreign conflicts.

The absence of Vice President J.D. Vance from public briefings related to the operation has fuelled speculation about internal dissent, though the White House has not commented.

Marjorie Taylor Greene, a former congresswoman and once a close ally of Mr. Trump, wrote that she felt “disgust with our own government’s never ending military aggression.”

New York City’s newly elected mayor, Zohran Mamdani, said he spoke directly with the president to protest the intervention. He described the strike as an act of war and a violation of both U.S. and international law.

Oil, power and precedent

The Trump administration has presented the intervention partly as a strike against drug trafficking. Critics, however, see oil as the more persuasive explanation. Mr. Trump has repeatedly asserted that Venezuela “stole” American oil wealth, a claim that energy experts and international lawyers say has no basis in law or ownership.

At the same press conference, the president said that major U.S. oil companies would be encouraged to invest billions of dollars to repair Venezuela’s dilapidated energy infrastructure. Industry analysts note that enthusiasm in Houston and New York appears limited. Political risk, legal uncertainty and the prospect of being drawn into a geopolitical experiment have made many firms cautious about returning to Caracas.

Venezuela remains a major oil supplier to China, Russia, Iran and Cuba. Any effort to reroute those flows would carry significant geopolitical consequences, potentially increasing Washington’s leverage while sharpening rivalries with its adversaries.

For now, the intervention has left Venezuela suspended between sovereignty and supervision. It has also reopened old questions about the reach of presidential power, the direction of U.S. foreign policy and the resilience of an international system already struggling to keep force from becoming the first, rather than last, resort.