This article was updated with additional questions and responses on January 8, 2026, following the January 3, 2026, U.S. capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife from their residence in downtown Caracas. The couple was transported to New York City to stand trial on U.S. federal drug charges. The original piece is intact below the new information.
On September 2, 2025, President Donald Trump announced that the U.S. military had carried out a strike against a fishing boat off the coast of Venezuela, killing all 11 people on board. The cause given was drug smuggling. There have been 35 strikes in the Caribbean Sea and Eastern Pacific Ocean and 115 people killed since September 2, including the most recent strike on December 31. This has been a change in policy for the U.S. approach to maritime drug smuggling off the coast of Latin America, which has historically been treated as a law enforcement issue handled by the U.S. Coast Guard. Many legal experts believe the strikes to be unlawful, extrajudicial killings. A classified memo from the U.S. Department of Justice is said to be the administration’s legal justification for the strikes and rests on President Trump’s determination that the U.S. is in a state of armed conflict with the drug cartels, and the fishermen are “combatants.”
The U.S. military has been building up forces near Venezuela, sending the USS Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier to the Caribbean. Media reports have speculated that the Trump Administration’s ultimate goal is regime change in Venezuela. President Trump has said he thinks that Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro’s days are numbered, and these remarks were followed by Maduro’s capture and transfer to the U.S. on January 3, leaving the regime he led intact, for now. But how these pieces fit together and what might come next is not clear. We spoke with Professor Michael Shifter, adjunct professor in the Center for Latin American Studies, about the Trump Administration’s strategy for Venezuela. Shifter is the former president of the Inter-American Dialogue, a leading policy forum for Western Hemisphere Affairs.
Q: On January 3, 2026, U.S. Army Delta Force commandos captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife from their residence in downtown Caracas and transported the couple to New York City to stand trial on U.S. federal drug charges. The Trump Administration has framed this action as law enforcement rather than a military move. Why does this distinction matter? Is the outcome of a trial likely to be viewed as legitimate by the international community?
A: The distinction is crucial and has important implications. A law enforcement action is guided by domestic law against crimes such as murder and drug trafficking. It is more limited than military operations, which involve the use of force and are subject to international law. A state can only use force on another state’s territory legally if it is authorized by the UN Security Council or acts in legitimate self-defense against an armed attack. Neither of those conditions applies in this case. It is understandable why the Trump Administration labeled the capture and detention of Maduro and his wife as a law enforcement move. It is debatable whether this was consistent with U.S. domestic law. The outcome of an eventual trial is likely to be viewed mostly through a political lens. U.S. allies and like-minded states will probably accept the trial’s legal procedures, while U.S. adversaries and some leftist governments in Latin America will reject the outcome as illegitimate because they believe it stems from an unlawful use of force. Some European states might be in between, recognizing the seriousness of the charges but at the same time underscoring the importance of international law and norms of sovereignty.
Q: Secretary General António Guterres condemned President Maduro’s capture, saying that it violated the UN Charter. What are the consequences of such a bold departure from international law and norms? How might it affect the actions of other states like Russia or China?
A: The way in which President Maduro was captured, in violation of international law and the UN Charter, sets a dangerous precedent. It gives license to other states to use military force without regard to any of the fundamental rules or norms that have characterized the international system since World War II. Russia’s aggressive and unjustified military action against Ukraine nearly four years ago was rightly and widely condemned by most of the international community. The military move against Maduro significantly erodes the credibility of the U.S. in criticizing President Putin and reduces the political cost of the Ukraine invasion. It supports Putin’s familiar argument that the West is hypocritical and applies norms selectively, only when it is convenient, and that sheer power and force, not rules, are what matter in the end. China, too, has long maintained that international law is applied unevenly and that powerful states interpret it to suit their own interests. The U.S. military action in Caracas makes it easier for China to counter any criticism about the possible use of force against Taiwan in the name of reunification. In this regard, the U.S. military raid on January 3 eases any pressure Moscow and Beijing might have been subjected to in pursuit of their extraterritorial ambitions.
Q: Shortly after announcing President Maduro’s capture, President Trump said that the United States would “run” Venezuela. How do you see this playing out?
A: It is hard to predict how this will play out. The message from the administration is far from clear and consistent. President Trump has insisted that he is in charge of Venezuela, while Secretary of State and National Security Adviser Marco Rubio has tried to walk back that bold assertion. He has emphasized instead that the U.S. will exercise its leverage through an oil blockade and demand compliance on a variety of policies of the Venezuelan regime, now led by Interim President Delcy Rodriguez. For now, the U.S. priority seems to be focused on the oil sector, highlighted by President Trump’s recent announcement that Venezuela will turn over between 30 to 50 million barrels of oil to the United States to be sold at market value, a move that raises legal questions. The administration is testing a novel model of coerced cooperation, from a distance, with the same group of senior Venezuelan officials – minus Maduro – that has “run” a highly repressive and corrupt authoritarian regime for several decades. This arrangement might function for some time, but it carries enormous risks. It could reach its limit and become quite unstable, perhaps leading to sporadic violence and chaos. Rubio recently unveiled a three-phase plan that would eventually result in elections and a democratic transition, but Trump does not seem too keen to move in that direction.
Q: How will President Maduro’s removal affect the people of Venezuela in the immediate future? What should we watch out for with the government of the new interim president, Delcy Rodriguez, in the coming days?
A: Although most Venezuelans are understandably happy about the removal and arrest of Maduro, unfortunately, the chances that the conditions of their daily lives will improve in the short term are remote. The country is confronting an array of profound crises that the regime now in place, even with U.S. pressure and threats, will have a hard time addressing. There are ample reasons to doubt whether Interim President Rodriguez and her inner circle have the will or capacity to pursue significant steps demanded by the Trump Administration. It is important to track whether the current regime moves, for example, to: sever its ties to China, Russia and Iran; tackle drug-trafficking and other illicit activities rampant in Venezuela such as illegal gold mining and human smuggling; dismantle multiple criminal groups, including the colectivos or armed paramilitaries and Colombian insurgencies that have long operated in Venezuelan territory; release all political prisoners and hostages; and allow activities of civil society and give the opposition space to organize peacefully. The big bet of the Trump Administration on oil is unlikely to materialize without a serious effort to build some institutional capacity in Venezuela that includes legal guarantees. Oil companies will likely remain skeptical until there is greater stability in the country. Only when a democratic government is in place will Venezuela be able to put the welfare of its people front and center.
Originally published November 14, 2025
Q: The Trump Administration has maintained that the 20 U.S. military strikes against fishing boats in the Caribbean Sea and Eastern Pacific Ocean since September 2 are a response to drug smuggling. How does this differ from the approach that the U.S. has historically taken to maritime drug smuggling off the coast of Latin America?
A: The Trump Administration’s policy of destroying fishing boats allegedly carrying drugs and killing people without due process or providing any evidence constitutes a radical departure from the U.S.’s traditional approach in combating the maritime drug trade in Latin America. In all significant respects, what is happening today is unprecedented. The decades-long policy adopted by all previous U.S. administrations chiefly relied on the U.S. Coast Guard and the Drug Enforcement Administration to patrol coastlines, target smuggling routes and seize shipments. Alleged criminals were detained and tried in a court of law. Forging partnerships with other countries was emphasized. To be sure, as the Trump Administration contends, the traditional approach often proved inadequate and fell short of expected results. Yet, it is hard to see how the current policy will be able to make a dent in the far more sophisticated, increasingly global and dramatically transformed trade in illegal narcotics. A new, more intelligent and sophisticated approach is needed, including a serious focus on curbing demand at home.
Q: What is the Trump Administration’s strategy towards Venezuela? How do these attacks on fishing boats support that overall strategy?
A: It is hard to know precisely what the Trump Administration’s strategy towards Venezuela is, or even if there is a strategy, beyond displaying toughness and projecting power and dominance aimed at what it now labels as a “narco-terrorist” regime led by Nicolas Maduro. Even though Venezuela serves as a transit point for cocaine produced in neighboring Colombia that is shipped mostly to Europe, not the U.S., the Administration has largely framed the relentless military pressure in terms of fighting drugs. Its stance on whether it is seeking regime change, which seems to be the real objective, has been ambiguous. It is plausible that the impressive U.S. military deployment in the Caribbean and attacks on the fishing boats are part of an intimidation campaign to provoke panic and fear within the regime that will produce cracks in the armed forces and eventually result in ousting Maduro. Since the days of Maduro’s predecessor, Hugo Chavez, the U.S. has been betting that senior military officers would defect and create the conditions leading to a democratic transition. Maduro’s days may indeed be numbered, as President Trump recently said, but he has proven to be a survivor.
Q: How are the Trump Administration’s actions being perceived in Venezuela? What do you expect from President Maduro in response?
A: Although President Maduro retains a core base of political support, he is overwhelmingly unpopular in Venezuela. Few doubt that in the July 2024 national elections, Maduro lost decisively to Edmundo Gonzalez, who stood in for the opposition’s most popular leader and the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize winner Maria Corina Machado, who the regime prohibited from running. Machado, in hiding in Venezuela, has publicly supported the Trump administration’s aggressive, militarized policy off the country’s coast. Other opposition figures have been more critical of what they deem the U.S.’s illegal actions. Although most Venezuelans want Maduro out of office, they are worried about what might come next and the risks of a breakdown in internal security. Criminal groups and illicit activities are rampant in Venezuela, so even without Maduro in charge, moving towards a peaceful situation will be exceedingly difficult. To date, in response to sustained U.S. pressure and threats, Maduro has been defiant. Unsurprisingly, and invoking a national emergency, the regime has further cracked down on any potential dissent and opposition. Maduro has announced “maximum preparedness” in defense, has put his country in full mobilization mode, and has reportedly called up millions of militias to help deter U.S. intervention. He has asked such allies as Russia, China and Iran for support in countering U.S. aggression but should probably not expect much from any of them.
Q: Media reports have suggested that the Trump Administration’s ultimate goal is regime change in Venezuela. Do you give credence to this hypothesis? How likely is that objective to be met?
A: The idea that the Trump Administration’s ultimate goal in Venezuela is regime change has gained credence in the past few weeks. Given the magnitude of the U.S. military build-up and show of force, the claim that the objective is fighting drugs is not credible. The Administration’s hope appears to be that Maduro will be so rattled by the military deployment that he will see the writing on the wall and decide to self-deport to a friendly country. So far, there are no signs he is ready to pursue that option. The other possibility is that Maduro will be ousted from inside the military ranks, and someone will claim the $50 million bounty on his head. It is hard to know how probable that is. Some experts talk about a surgical strike against Maduro along the lines of the drone strike Trump ordered against General Soleimani in his first term. Even if any of these options were to materialize, the question remains: what happens next? If Maduro is removed but a military officer or someone else within the regime takes over, will that be acceptable? If not, how would the U.S. help engineer a democratic change? Since committing U.S. troops on Venezuelan soil appears to be out of the question, given the enormous risks involved, how realistic is it to believe that a transition can be achieved in the short term in a country dominated by Chavista rule for over a quarter century? Key questions abound.