Reported by: Ijeoma G | Edited by: Gabriel Osa
In a dramatic escalation of tensions between the United States and Venezuela, the U.S. military has launched large-scale strikes inside Venezuelan territory, targeting strategic sites in and around the capital, Caracas, in what represents one of the most significant direct military actions by Washington in the Western Hemisphere in decades. The operation, carried out early on Saturday, January 3, 2026, has sent shockwaves through the region and ignited intense international reaction.
According to multiple reports from U.S. and global media, U.S. President Donald Trump announced that American forces executed a coordinated strike against sites in Venezuela, including military facilities, as part of an escalating campaign of pressure against the government of President Nicolás Maduro. Trump claimed that the operation resulted in the capture of Mr. Maduro and his wife, who were reportedly flown out of the country — a claim that remains contested and has not been independently verified by Venezuelan authorities or independent sources on the ground.
Explosions rang out across Caracas in the early hours of Saturday, with videos and witness accounts describing multiple blasts, the presence of aircraft, and significant power outages in parts of the city. The strikes are reported to have struck both civilian and military infrastructure, prompting widespread alarm among residents and prompting a national state of emergency declared by the Venezuelan government.
Officials in Caracas vehemently condemned the attack as an act of “military aggression” and a violation of Venezuela’s sovereignty. Venezuelan Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino denounced the presence of foreign forces and called on the international community to condemn the strikes, framing them as an assault on national independence. President Maduro’s government characterized the U.S. action as imperialist and vowed to mobilize defense forces.
The reported military operation comes against the backdrop of months of rising tensions between Washington and Caracas. U.S. authorities had previously intensified military and naval presence in the Caribbean and the eastern Pacific, deploying warships including the USS Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier, increasing pressure tied to alleged counter-drug efforts, and previously seizing Venezuelan oil tankers under sanctions. The Trump administration has repeatedly accused the Maduro regime of involvement in drug trafficking and designated key Venezuelan criminal networks as terrorist entities, though these allegations have been heavily disputed and legally controversial.
Within Venezuela, reaction to the strikes was swift and severe. Maduro’s government declared a national state of emergency, mobilized military forces, and called for unity in the face of what it described as a foreign invasion. The crisis response included heightened readiness for internal defense, and leaders urged citizens and allied social and political sectors to prepare for a protracted confrontation.
The response from regional governments has been mixed. Colombia, sharing a long border with Venezuela, deployed armed forces to its frontier amid fears of a refugee influx and broader instability resulting from the conflict. Colombian President Gustavo Petro condemned the strikes as violations of Venezuelan sovereignty and called for an emergency session of the United Nations Security Council to address the crisis.
International reactions have underscored deep divisions over the U.S. action. Some nations condemned the strikes in the strongest terms, accusing Washington of violating international law and setting a dangerous precedent for unilateral military interventions. Cuba and Iran issued sharp denunciations, framing the strikes as acts of aggression against a sovereign state and calling for urgent global response. In contrast, a number of countries, including Argentina, expressed support for the U.S. action, underscoring concerns over regional security and the transnational impacts of Venezuela’s political situation.
The legal basis for the U.S. strikes has become a subject of intense debate. Critics argue that the absence of explicit authorization from the U.S. Congress for military action against Venezuela raises constitutional and international law issues. Some U.S. legislators have voiced reservations about the legality of the strike, highlighting the need for legislative oversight of foreign military engagements. The administration, for its part, has stressed its authority under existing counter-narco-terrorism measures and national security mandates, though these justifications have been challenged by legal scholars and political opponents.
The reported capture of President Maduro and his wife, if confirmed, would represent an extraordinary development with profound implications for Venezuelan governance and regional stability. Venezuelan officials have demanded proof of life and whereabouts, and the government’s vice president publicly challenged U.S. authorities to provide clear evidence of their condition and location. Meanwhile, uncertainty persists over the continuity of Venezuelan state functions, the chain of command, and potential succession scenarios in the event of Maduro’s removal from power.
Analysts warn that the situation could rapidly escalate beyond its current scope, with the potential to draw in neighboring states and spark broader geopolitical confrontations. Latin American governments are watching closely, balancing concerns over sovereignty and non-intervention with fears of spillover impacts from rising violence and mass displacement. The Organization of American States and the United Nations have been urged by several diplomatic missions to convene urgent discussions, though formal sessions had yet to be scheduled at the time of reporting.
The United States maintains that its actions are part of a broader campaign against narcotics trafficking networks—often linked by Washington to elements of the Venezuelan government and criminal organizations operating within its borders. Nonetheless, critics both domestically and internationally argue that the conflation of drug control objectives with direct military strikes risks undermining established legal norms governing the use of force and could trigger long-term instability.
As of this report, key details about the strikes — including casualty figures, the precise sequence of events, and the current status of top Venezuelan leaders — remain unconfirmed by independent sources on the ground. The coming hours and days are expected to be critical in determining whether this episode marks a new chapter of confrontation or moves toward negotiation under intense international scrutiny.
📩 Stone Reporters News | 🌍 stonereportersnews.com
✉️ info@stonereportersnews.com | 📘 Facebook: Stone Reporters | 🐦 X (Twitter): @StoneReportNew | 📸 Instagram: @stonereportersnews
Add comment
Comments