Talk:2026 United States strikes in Venezuela: Difference between revisions

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a contentious topic. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator.

Section sizes

Section size for 2026 United States strikes in Venezuela (13 sections)
Section name	Byte count		Prose size (words)
Section name	Header	Total	Header	Total
(Top)	5,682	5,682	126	126
Background	6,837	6,837	257	257
Attack	5,283	5,283	200	200
Capture of Maduro	3,500	3,500	178	178
Casualties	882	882	77	77
Aftermath	2,669	2,669	82	82
Reactions and analysis	29	7,660	0	406
Venezuela	1,838	1,838	78	78
United States	3,723	3,723	207	207
International	103	103	0	0
Legal analysis	1,967	1,967	121	121
See also	289	289	0	0
References	799	799	0	0
Total	33,601	33,601	1,326	1,326

There is a lot of editing back and forth between using the infobox military operation or Infobox civilian attack. I feel the military operation is more fitting but I think it’s better if we come to a consensus on which to use. dom 09:08, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox military operation as it is well, a military operation of some sort. Raskuly (talk) 09:22, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support changing to above. It is indeed a military operation and not a civilian one. Ahri Boy (talk) 09:28, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support the use of the military operation infobox. Both the Venezuelan government side and the US government side have acknowledged this as an operation of the US and jets being used and reported by witnesses in reputable sources makes it military. There’s no point in fighting to use the civilian attack infobox anymore. Dead3y3 (talk) 09:37, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Have there been any reports of any casualties or victims of the strikes? There’s plenty of sources detailing the targets but I can’t find information on possible deaths related to the strike. If information emerges, should this information be added to the article? AnuraMS (talk) 10:27, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

trump said no Americans dead that’s for sure Moiq6 (talk) 14:35, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The media confirmed no American soldiers were killed, an unprecedented military success for the United States. A military triumph. A military operation incredibly effective. Dorian88A (talk) 16:06, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In late October, President Trump deployed the Night Stalkers to Venezuela. It is highly likely they were involved. Should this be included with the Southern Spear/deployment background?

Sources: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/oct/22/us-night-stalkers-caribbean-fears-regime-change-venezuela-nicolas-maduro

Giwaa (talk) 10:29, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone. While contributing to this article, I would appreciate your help in improving User:Cyfraw/Indictment of Nicolás Maduro. The draft was largely stalled for around six years and has only been updated recently following the announcement of a $50 million reward related to Nicolás Maduro. As the topic serves as an important prelude to subsequent military action, additional contributions, sourcing, or review would be very helpful.
Thank you. cyrfaw (talk) 10:39, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Looks pretty solid to me, though I just had a quick glance at it. If you’re concerned about it, put it through AfC? MWFwiki (talk) 11:38, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Maduro has been charged with “Narco-Terrorism Conspiracy, Cocaine Importation Conspiracy, Possession of Machineguns and Destructive Devices, and Conspiracy to Possess Machineguns and Destructive Devices against the United States” in the Southern District of New York, says US Attorney General Pam Bondi according to the BBC—TommyTu25 (talk) 12:43, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

But “narcoterrorism” isn’t an actual thing under US law, is it? Guettarda (talk) 15:55, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs a section detailing how the attack, and the claimed kidnapping of a head of state – and his wife – are legitimate under US, Venezuelan and international law. On the face of it, with no war declaration, and no immediate threat to the US, there’s a question about the attack, and likewise capturing heads of state seems a serious breach of the Vienna Convention, and customary international law. A counter-argument could be that Maduro may not have been properly elected, so perhaps the real president is Gonzalez. Either way, under all relevant laws, taking Maduro’s spouse seems 100% illegal. ~2026-48703 (talk) 11:09, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. One side, the US government/Trump, tries to frame it POVilly and prematurely as the capture of Maduro, but here we have a sovereign country that has being striked illegally. This should be added to the article. Dead3y3 (talk) 11:12, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We don’t decide anything. The sources report, and we coalesce them and repeat what they say, within the bounds of Wikipedia policy and guidelines, additionally guided by consensus. As soon as the sources begin to discuss this, I can virtually guarantee that this will be added to the article. However, it is also important to remember that Wikipedia is not a courtroom where we argue or support our beliefs or opinions. Lastly, it’s 6am Eastern. Give the sources some time. We can’t just add things because we feel they should be included. MWFwiki (talk) 11:12, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The UN special rapporteur on counter-terrorism and human rights has called it illegal.

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/professor-ben-saul-46748a13_venezuela-latest-trump-says-us-has-captured-activity-7413174757405151232-AxV4

I find it extremely uncomfortable that Wikipedia looks automatically to biased sources that regurgitate the US defense statements on their own illegal activity. This is not a “capture” and “arrest” (tame language that falsely implies that the US is at war with Venezuela and that this is a military action followed by the apprehending of a criminal), but the kidnapping of a foreign head of state. Of course in the English language there will be a proliferation of sources biased towards the US; if there is a lack of independent sources and both sides accuse the other of bias, then Wikipedia should err on the side of the victim and not the aggressor. ~2025-33975-17 (talk) 14:04, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The opinion of a a single professor of international law is not enough to establish such an exceptional claim. We would either need a conviction by an international court, or a widespread consensus among such experts. Dieknon (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the Wikipedia policy on original research. Dieknon (talk) 11:13, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I don’t know whether this could violate WP:NPOV, but I would like to say that the United States strikes on Iranian nuclear sites only mentions legitimacy under international law in the reactions section. Oakchris1955 (talk) 11:17, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We would need reliable sources mentioning a questioning the legality to add such a section. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 11:17, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Should belligerents, commanders and leaders be added to this article? Globetrotter30 (talk) 11:16, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

this was a unilateral attack afaik with no retaliation from venezuela, so unless there is some retaliation i would assume not ~2026-48246 (talk) 11:19, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

it’s also important to note that there already is an article that shows this, that being the United States–Venezuela conflict ~2026-49052 (talk) 11:34, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:21, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Should the content in the Reactions section be limited to actual substantial reactions? I know it’s not very flag salad at the moment because countries are presumably waiting for Trump’s press conference to decide what to say, but length isn’t the only concern, the point of inclusion is. Spokespeople saying “fighting is bad” is as unsubstantial and generic as “thoughts and prayers”. I can see having a simple prose list of “Representatives of X, Y and Z condemned the violence”, but devoting any significance to these statements individually is too much. Colombia is deploying apparently its entire military to the border, this is the sort of response that should be mentioned.

On a related note, one US senator saying it’s illegal is clearly not representative of the US government: it can be noted but should not be spammed in prominent locations as if it’s the official US reaction. Kingsif (talk) 11:52, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support: A few hours ago I had to remove a Polish reaction that said “We will react”. Borgenland (talk) 13:43, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And as soon as length did become a concern, it was inappropriately forked out. We now have a listicle that’s just bullet points of flags saying “fighting is bad”, no point and no context, great job. Kingsif (talk) 16:31, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Could this operation be considered a coup d’état? Could be included in Venezuelan coups d’état ? Holapaco77 (talk) 12:35, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Probably too early to say at the moment. Thanks, Glasspalace (talk • contribs) 12:36, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think you could consider it a coup d’état. It’s not an internal revolution or conflict to change the regime, but rather an external force, whose intentions we still aren’t sure of. Bytezo (talk) 12:50, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There’s nothing in the definition of a coup that dictates it must be internal. natemup (talk) 15:37, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Coups are defined by two things: people within a nation overthrow a system to seize power. Perpetrator foreign? Not intending to install themselves as leader? Not a coup. Very simple no. Kingsif (talk) 12:59, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There’s nothing in the definition of a coup that dictates it must be internal. natemup (talk) 15:37, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There very much is, mate. Foreign powers can very strongly and materially support coups, but if a foreign group overthrows a government, it is an attack. Kingsif (talk) 16:13, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You can read it right there in the link or in a dictionary. Your definition isn’t there. An “attack” doesn’t preclude something also being a coup. natemup (talk) 16:19, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The government of Venezuela appears to be stable at the moment, so definitely no coup yet. Unless of course it turns out that this was all a ploy to get Delcy Rodríguez into power. Would be quite the turn. Dieknon (talk) 14:50, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow it seems improper to say that a government is “stable” when its head of state, who essentially ruled by a decree, has been kidnapped and incarcerated in a foreign country. natemup (talk) 15:38, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. There’s nothing in the definition of a coup that dictates it must be internally led. Especially since many or most coups in Latin America have occurred with United States support or even military action. natemup (talk) 15:36, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

2026 United States strikes in Venezuela → 2026 United States military operation in Venezuela – Obviously not only “strikes”. Cfls (talk) 13:15, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support – This seems reasonable for the time being. Dieknon (talk) 13:18, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wait – No need to rush. Dieknon (talk) 13:37, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Thanks, Glasspalace (talk • contribs) 13:20, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wait. Thanks, Glasspalace (talk • contribs) 13:32, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wait for further information as per consensus in previous RMs today. Impru20^talk 13:22, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wait as far as I can tell, United States’ attack on Venezuela is probably the WP:COMMONNAME. M.Bitton (talk) 13:29, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely too soon to determine a common name. Thanks, Glasspalace (talk • contribs) 13:31, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That’s why I said probably. It gets more hits than what is proposed. M.Bitton (talk) 13:33, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What sources are you taking that from?

CNN uses “strikes on Venezuela”.

BBC uses “strikes on Venezuela”.

The Associated Press uses “strike” and “military action”.

MSNBC uses “offensive” and “strikes”.

Sky News UK uses “strikes”.

Dieknon (talk) 13:35, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources that use United States’ attack on Venezuela (way too many to list). M.Bitton (talk) 13:37, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, list a couple then. Dieknon (talk) 13:38, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t need to bother since I !voted wait. M.Bitton (talk) 13:40, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It may be useful for future discussions. Dieknon (talk) 13:43, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

FT “US launches attack on Venezuela”

The Guardian: “US attacks Venezuela” Sprout9 (talk) 14:24, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree waiting before we change the name is the best thing here, though. Sprout9 (talk) 14:26, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Al Jazeera: “US bombing of Venezuela”

Xinhua: “U.S. launches strikes on Venezuela”

South China Morning Post: “‘large scale strike’ by US” Young N’ Brash (talk) 15:16, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support (or wait) it works as a better title while we wait for further details.–ReyHahn (talk) 13:31, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support probably the better name Braganza (talk) 13:32, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not WP:COMMONNAME, I think the title should be Capture of Nicholas Maduro, but this should be discussed after the press conference at 11am est. Ecrusized (talk) 13:41, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Maduro’s so-called “capture” is supposed to have happened during the main event (the attack on a sovereign state). M.Bitton (talk) 13:50, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wait (support). The situation is continuing to change. We should wait for the WP:CommonName to change. We should wait for what President Donald Trump calls it, and see what happens to the news media following such events. Thanks. Globetrotter30 (talk) 14:03, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Regardless of what happens with the Trump press conference, with the capture of Maduro, this is undoubtedly more accurately called an operation rather than simply just strikes. KristofferR (talk) 14:10, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, it’s probably best to wait for enough information to come to a final decision on the title. Thanks, Glasspalace (talk • contribs) 14:16, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I don’t see the point of keeping an inaccurate title rather than just potentially improving it further a second time. KristofferR (talk) 14:37, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Thanks, Glasspalace (talk • contribs) 14:39, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Special military operation? Mellk (talk) 14:53, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wait. More information is needed and this is a current event that is rapidly developing. A common name should start to be used and then we can determine an accurate title. MagnesiumCube (talk) 14:24, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wait Given how quickly the situation is changing, we should wait and see what the US government officially calls it. Frankserafini87 (talk) 14:44, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Was it a military operation or a military intervention? Anyway I support 2026 United States coup d’état in Venezuela ~2026-52628 (talk) 14:56, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It was not a coup. Grahammydoodle (talk) 14:57, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not a coup. Miltary operation would suffice, I think. MagnesiumCube (talk) 14:58, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This was a military operation not a coup in any sense of the word. Frankserafini87 (talk) 15:01, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? Seems to fit the Coup d’état definition ~2026-52628 (talk) 15:02, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See the discussion above. Thanks, Glasspalace (talk • contribs) 15:03, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, why not call it a special military operation? ~2026-50955 (talk) 15:04, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Because we didn’t invade them unlike Russia with Ukraine. Grahammydoodle (talk) 15:05, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

“We” lmao ~2026-51667 (talk) 15:13, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please familiarise yourself with WP:NOTFORUM. IJA (talk) 15:17, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wait I believe it should be the Capture of Nicholas Maduro in line with the titles of Capture of Saddam Hussein, the Killing of Muammar Gaddafi, and Killing of Osama bin Laden. Thegunkid (talk) 15:10, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Dupport Seems consistent is accurate, and avoids any assumed bias words like strike, attack, or operation –uncleben85 (talk) 15:37, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wait (oppose) I support the title Capture of Nicolas Maduro, but don’t hesitate as the situation is changing rapidly, a new request may be maid after the confirmation. Ahammed Saad (talk) 15:54, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

‘Support for the title Capture of Nicolas Maduro in line with other articles. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 15:58, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, lean support: Let U.S official press briefing say something first 4-RΔ𝚉🌑R-01𝕏 (talk) 16:14, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support as it was not only strikes, but a capture as well. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 16:15, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wait For now as more information is revealed, though I do support a change away from the word strike. Ktkvtsh (talk) 15:16, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We should probably institute a moratorium on move requests until, at least, the press conference. Thanks, Glasspalace (talk • contribs) 13:44, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I don’t think the discussions are going to end any time before then, so they’re pretty pointless. Dieknon (talk) 13:48, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support per above. It’s going to lead to the same result (to wait) until we get more updates. Zycone (talk) 14:03, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support At least until the press conference in 2 hours from now. Ecrusized (talk) 14:09, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support moratorium, per reasons above. Impru20^talk 14:26, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support Information is coming out at a rapid pace regarding what is a very recent event. A moratorium needs to be given, otherwise we are going to have to contend with competing move requests every couple of minutes. We need time to see what becomes the established term for the event in the media. Pax Brittanica (talk) 14:42, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support as said above. Ktkvtsh (talk) 15:17, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, we know very little at this point and any further changes should be delayed until then. Green7501 (talk) 15:42, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Agreed with the above Sprout9 (talk) 16:04, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

~2025-32162-46 (talk) 14:46, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree some of this information, as well as other information about the planning, should be included, I do not think Reactions is the appropriate location and I think it would be better to incorporate when also adding any information about planning revealed in the press conference, so not done for now. Kingsif (talk) 16:10, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Carmen de Uria —> Carmen de Uria ~2026-45130 (talk) 15:19, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done OceanGunfish (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So far it is an allegation with no proof. While notable, the section can be caveated until proven by 1. Venezuela, 2. appearance in NY court or 3. any other official sources or media images. Psephguru (talk) 15:24, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We do not require proof of the allegation. If reliable sources state that Maduro has been captured, that’s sufficient for us to indicate this. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 15:28, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not currently assert that Maduro was captured. But suppose for a moment that it did turn out that he wasn’t captured. Wouldn’t that make the section dedicated to the alleged capture even more notable?

BREAKING: President Donald Trump’s assertion that Maduro has been captured was made “in mistake”

Media wouldn’t let that story down for the next century. Dieknon (talk) 15:30, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Proof IS REQUIRED. not an allegation. Every source refers back to trump social media post.

also it is notable. That’s why the section is there but re-named.Psephguru (talk) 15:38, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This should not have been Extended Confirmed Protected so fast. Will there be anyone competent and reasonable to address this action? Abc7221a (talk) 15:46, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse the application of ECP to this page at this time by User:ToBeFree. We’re clearly in the realm of dispute of American Politics here. BusterD (talk) 15:50, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So what is your argument for it? Abc7221a (talk) 15:55, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

this is perfectly valid as per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2. Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 15:57, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Does that apply to events, and rapidly changing events, that happened less than 10 hours ago? I think this is clearly against the purpose and intent of Wikipedia. There are multiple problems, including prohibiting almost everyone from editing who might have info. Or would the argument against that just be that everyone with a useful edit would be aware he had to make a talk page request, then would actually do it? Abc7221a (talk) 16:02, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this is a military and major international action. And it was performed in another country. I am expounding mainly on my previous reply with this. Abc7221a (talk) 16:04, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. It is an encyclopedia carefully built on mostly secondary sources (WP:PSTS) and prefers zero information to incorrect information (WP:V).

Regarding the scope of the contentious topic area, these are broadly construed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:07, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And where in a formal policy does it state the opposite, or even imply the opposite of my argument? Or in those linked pages either? Abc7221a (talk) 16:11, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry, what exactly is your argument? Prohibiting most people from editing for now is the effect of the protection. The existence of talk page requests (and a button for making them shown to those who need it) isn’t an argument against protection either. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:17, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In the comments I have made here. Should I copy and paste them? Abc7221a (talk) 16:18, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is your argument for reducing or removing page protection? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:18, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

All righty then, here are all of my 6 comments here copied and pasted.

my 1st comment:This should not have been Extended Confirmed Protected so fast. Will there be anyone competent and reasonable to address this action?

my 2nd comment:So what is your argument for it?

my 3rd comment:Does that apply to events, and rapidly changing events, that happened less than 10 hours ago? I think this is clearly against the purpose and intent of Wikipedia. There are multiple problems, including prohibiting almost everyone from editing who might have info. Or would the argument against that just be that everyone with a useful edit would be aware he had to make a talk page request, then would actually do it?

my 4th comment:Also, this is a military and major international action. And it was performed in another country. I am expounding mainly on my previous reply with this.

my 5th comment:And where in a formal policy does it state the opposite, or even imply the opposite of my argument? Or in those linked pages either?

my 6th comment:In the comments I have made here. Should I copy and paste them?

my seventh one is this one Abc7221a (talk) 16:26, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My main concern is not for just for removing it. Obviously, it was that it never should have happened for something like this, especially within 10 hours. Abc7221a (talk) 16:28, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand correctly, your argumentation is a mix of “protection needs to be justified” (it is, for example by the flood of edits that is hard to manage even at this protection level, and by previous experiences with disruption of similar articles as described in the ArbCom case), “prohibiting almost everyone from editing” (that’s a description of what protection does, not an argument for or against it), “against the purpose and intent of Wikipedia” (addressed above, Wikipedia is not a newspaper), and “[protection happened] so fast”/”within 10 hours” (yes, in response to a flood of edits that was just as fast; we don’t need to watch this for days to see where it goes).

Nothing of this is “obviously” or “clearly” and most of your arguments appear to be statements of opinion. Having these opinions is perfectly fine but these words don’t magically make things more understandable for others. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:34, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Even with extended-protection the page is impossible to edit. There appears to be a full global cohort of editors here, mostly to discuss whether the US committed a crime of aggression. I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s briefly raised to full protection in the coming days. Dieknon (talk) 15:56, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Subwaythangkumol6748 (talk) 15:52, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it’s not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a “change X to Y” format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 15:55, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. somehow it’s not appearing for no reason Subwaythangkumol6748 (talk) 16:03, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

BUT SOMEHOW the edits i made won’t appear Subwaythangkumol6748 (talk) 16:04, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is your thread asking why your edits to the article aren’t appearing? This is because your account does not appear to be extended-confirmed (this requires a certain age and number of edits). In the meantime, you can state explicitly what you believe should be edited. Kingsif (talk) 16:07, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

but the thing i did is that i fixed the article massively by fixing the grammar, wording, and etc. you can fix it if you want Subwaythangkumol6748 (talk) 16:06, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the lead should be changed from “It is considered a major escalation of the ongoing conflict in the region.” to “It is considered a major escalation of the ongoing conflict between the two nations.” Especially considering the linked page.

I have the ability to edit this page (I am Extended Confirmed) but I wanted to discuss this before changing the lead on a contentious topic. Delcoan (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense, that line links to a page specifically about a conflict between the two nations anyway so this should be fine. I’ll go ahead and make the change if someone hasn’t done it by now. Thanks, Glasspalace (talk • contribs) 16:09, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We follow the Trump admin in saying Maduro has been indicted on charges of “narcorterrorism”, but to the best of my understanding, there isn’t any such crime under US law. Maduro was indicted in 2020, so there has to be real records of real crimes. While we should report what Bondi et al are calling them charges, we should be providing readers with facts. Guettarda (talk) 16:03, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The full indictment is available to read online – The Guardian has it available to download as a pdf, even – which we should be able to cite. Kingsif (talk) 16:05, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Here.

Actual statues are cited under the section STATUATORY ALLEGATIONS. Maduro specifically is alleged to have conspired to advance the activities of the FARC and ELN, both designated terrorist organisations. He is also alleged to have conspired to import controlled substances and machine guns into the United States. Dieknon (talk) 16:13, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Dieknon Thank you! Guettarda (talk) 16:31, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’m guessing it is legally defined as serious “narcotic related crimes” and under an either separate/related/both federal legal definition of terrorism under American law, additionally. Abc7221a (talk) 16:09, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Yacine Boussoufa (Write me!) 16:08, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well seems like while I was typing this, it got moved to International reactions to the 2026 United States strikes in Venezuela xD Yacine Boussoufa (Write me!) 16:10, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Material already present at International reactions to the 2026 United States strikes in Venezuela, as mentioned. Day Creature (talk) 16:29, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

On 3 January 2026, the United States launched airstrikes on multiple locations across northern Venezuela, including the capital city of Caracas.[1] It is considered a major escalation of the ongoing conflict in the region.

Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro declared a national state of emergency after the explosions began.[2] At 4:21 AM ET, US President Donald Trump announced on Truth Social that Maduro had been captured alongside his wife Cilia Flores , and flown out of the country.[3] US Attorney General Pam Bondi said they would both face charges of narcoterrorism.[4] In response, Venezuelan Vice President Delcy Rodríguez confirmed that both Maduro and his wife are missing and demanded “proof of life”.[5]

Background

In August 2025, the United States began a buildup in the southern Caribbean, deploying warships and military personnel.[6][7] In September, the United States Southern Command began conducting military strikes on vessels in the Caribbean Sea. The US alleges that some of the struck vessels were trafficking drugs on behalf of Venezuela.[8][9][10]

The actions formed part of Operation Southern Spear, a campaign targeting alleged criminal networks, including those allegedly aligned with the Venezuelan government of Nicolás Maduro.[11] Prior to the strikes, the United States accused Maduro of presiding over a “narco-state” and of electoral fraud in the 2024 presidential election.[12] Although the National Electoral Council declared Maduro the winner of that election, results compiled by the opposition claimed to show that its candidate, Edmundo González, had obtained a decisive majority.[13] President Trump had previously designated two Venezuelan drug gangs, Tren de Aragua and Cartel de los Soles, as Foreign Terrorist Organisations (FTOs), and alleged that the latter was led by Maduro himself.[13]

In November 2025, the US deployed the aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford, and in December began intercepting and seizing oil tankers, imposing a naval quarantine on Venezuela.[14][15] The US also launched covert operations in Venezuela under the directive of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in late December.[16] Donald Trump had previously announced that the US military would conduct strikes inside Venezuela.[17] Officials from the United States and other countries have questioned the legality of the strikes.[18][19][20]

In the weeks preceding the attack and after having commenced operations targeting vessels mostly out of Venezuela, an agreement was signed with Venezuela’s coastal neighbour, Trinidad and Tobago, to allow access to its airports for the U.S. military.[21]

Attack

On 3rd January, 2026, President Trump ordered strikes inside Venezuela, including on military facilities.[22][23][24]

At least seven explosions were reported at around 02:00 VET, and low-flying aircraft were seen,[25] predominantly in La Guaira, Higuerote, Meseta de Mamo, Baruta, El Hatillo, Charallave, and Carmen de Uria, which are mostly inside or near the capital city, Caracas.[26] Most of the explosions were launched at antennas and active military bases.[27] Early reports suggested that the explosions may have occurred at Generalissimo Francisco de Miranda Air Base (La Carlota) and Fort Tiuna, two military installations in the area.[28] Large explosions were also reported at Higuerote Airport.[29][30]

The strikes lasted half an hour. Smoke was seen rising from one military hangar in a Caracas base, while another was left unpowered.[25] David Smolansky, a spokesman for Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado, told CBS News that aside from Fort Tiuna and Miranda Airbase, La Guaira port and antennas in Cerro El Volcán were also hit.[31][32]

Maduro declared a national state of emergency after the explosions began.[2] The government promised to defend against US military actions that sought regime change. It described them as being “imperialist aggression” and called for the United Nations Security Council to be convened.[33]

Alleged capture of Maduro
Nicolás Maduro and Cilia Flores in May 2025

At 5:21 a.m. VET, US President Donald Trump posted on Truth Social that Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores had been captured and flown out of the country.[34][35] According to Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Maduro was arrested and will face criminal charges in the US.[36] Venezuelan Vice President Delcy Rodríguez confirmed that both Maduro and his wife are missing and demanded “proof of life” via an audio message on state television.[5][37] According to Reuters’ sources, Rodríguez is currently in Russia.[38]

According to CBS News, the operation targeting Maduro was undertaken by the Delta Force.[39] Venezuelan opposition sources in Venezuela told Sky News that they believed Maduro’s capture was a “negotiated exit” with the United States.[40] Hours later, US Attorney General Pam Bondi announced that Maduro and Flores had been indicted in the Southern District of New York on charges related to narcoterrorism.[4]

Casualties

Venezuelan Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino López said American combat helicopters fired rockets and missiles in urban areas, and they are working to gather information on the number of fatalities and injuries.[41] The Attorney General of Venezuela , Tarek William Saab, reported that “innocent victims have been mortally wounded and others killed by this criminal terrorist attack.”[42] President Trump told an interviewer on Fox News that no American soldiers were killed, but some were injured when their helicopter was hit.[43]

Aftermath

The US Federal Aviation Administration issued a NOTAM prohibiting American aircraft from operating at all altitudes within Venezuelan airspace, citing “ongoing military activity”.[44][45] The Embassy of the United States in Caracas issued a shelter-in-place order.[46] The southern area of Caracas reportedly lost power.[47]

Republican senator Mike Lee claimed that Secretary of State Marco Rubio “anticipates no further action in Venezuela now that Maduro is in US custody.”[48]

Maduro is expected to go on trial in the US where he had previously been indicted.[49][48]

Reactions
Venezuela

The Venezuelan Government stated that it rejected and denounced the military aggression.[23] It blamed the government of the United States, but did not mention Donald Trump directly.[50] President Maduro declared a state of emergency in response to the incident.[51]

United States

Senator Brian Schatz, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, warned against any US military involvement in Venezuela, posting on X that the United States has “no vital national interests in Venezuela to justify war.”[52] Republican senator Mike Lee initially posted to X that he looked “forward to learning what, if anything, might constitutionally justify” the strikes, but after a call with Secretary of State Rubio, said, “This action likely falls under the president’s inherent authority under Article II of the Constitution to protect US personnel from an actual or imminent attack”.[53][36] Chairwoman Lisa McClain of the United States House of Representatives Republican Conference stated and reiterated, “[…].So, let me put this simply: Maduro is a narco-terrorist. Period. His illegitimate regime floods our country with deadly drugs, and Americans pay the price. President Trump didn’t look the other way; he acted. That’s what leadership looks like, and it’s how you protect the American people.”[54]

Vice President JD Vance said the operation was justified as Maduro was a wanted fugitive in the United States. He also declared that “the stolen oil must be returned”.[55]

International

Albania: Foreign Minister Elisa Spiropali expressed Albania's full support for the US. Among other things, she said that "As a staunch US ally and NATO member, Albania stands shoulder to shoulder with American leadership in defending democratic principles and global security".[56]
Argentina: President Javier Milei celebrated the capture of Maduro and his wife on social media, posting on X, "liberty advances, ¡Viva la libertad, carajo!"[43][57]
Belarus: President Alexander Lukashenko "categorically condemned" the strikes and the Belarusian Ministry of Foreign Affairs said the US' "armed aggression" was a "direct threat" to international peace and security.[36]
Brazil: President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva condemned the strikes and the capture of Maduro, referring to them as a "very serious affront to the sovereignty of Venezuela and an extremely dangerous precedent to all the international community".[58]
Chile: President Gabriel Boric Font condemned the strikes, calling for a peaceful resolution to the crisis and reaffirming Chile's commitment to international law and multilateralism rather than violence and foreign interference.[59]
China: The Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated that it is "deeply shocked and strongly condemns the U.S. for recklessly using force against a sovereign state and targeting its president" and that the attack "seriously violates international law, violates Venezuela’s sovereignty, and threatens the peace and security of Latin America and the Caribbean".[60] The Chinese Embassy in Venezuela advised Chinese citizens to avoid travel to Venezuela due to the security situation.[36]
Colombia: President Gustavo Petro referred to the explosions as "bombing with missiles" and called for the United Nations and Organization of American States to meet immediately.[61] Petro also called for a meeting of the United Nations Security Council.[62] and rejected "the aggression against the sovereignty of Venezuela and of Latin America".[59]
Cuba: President and First Secretary of the Communist Party Miguel Díaz-Canel denounced "the criminal attack by the US" on Venezuela, and he called for urgent condemnation from the international community for what he described as "State terrorism against the brave Venezuelan people and against Our America."[63]
Denmark: The Minister for Foreign Affairs said, "I expect the UN Security Council to meet quickly to discuss the situation – we need to get back on track towards de-escalation and dialogue," adding "we must maintain respect for the international rules of the game".[64]
European Union: High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Kaja Kallas called for restraint, saying international law and the UN Charter must be upheld, while reiterating the EU's position that Maduro's government "lacks legitimacy".[65]
Germany: The Federal Foreign Office said it was watching the situation with great concern.[62]
Guyana: President Dr. Irfaan Ali stated that Guyana has activated its security plan, declaring that “the Guyana Defence Force and the security forces are monitoring the situation and Guyanese should be reassured that the government is working to ensure the safety and security of our citizens.”[66]
Indonesia: Yvonne Mewengkang, spokesperson for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, called for de-escalation and dialogue, emphasising "the importance of respecting international law and the principles of the UN Charter".[67]
Iran: The Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a statement strongly condemning the US attack on Venezuela, describing it as a blatant violation of the country's national sovereignty and territorial integrity.[68]
Italy: Antonio Tajani, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, said that Rome and its diplomatic representation in Caracas were monitoring the situation.[2]
Kosovo: President Vjosa Osmani stated, "Kosovo understands the impact of American resolve – our liberation is a testament to that. At a time when the US is confronting tyranny in Venezuela, we must all reinforce this stance, because the transatlantic community is strongest when united behind American leadership and shared values. When America leads, we stand proudly together – because our collective freedom depends on it."[69]
Mexico: President Claudia Sheinbaum "strongly condemns and rejects" the US military action, stating that the strikes breached the United Nations Charter. She urged the US to comply with international law and end "all acts of aggression" against the Venezuelan government and people.[70]
Panama: President José Raúl Mulino voiced support for Venezuela’s legitimate electoral outcome of the 2024 Venezuelan presidential election and the election of Edmundo González, affirming that Panama backs peace and an orderly and legitimate transition process.[71]
Russia: The Ministry of Foreign Affairs condemned the strikes, calling them an "act of armed aggression".[72]
South Korea: President Lee Jae Myung instructed officials to ensure the protection of South Korean nationals in Venezuela and to prepare evacuation plans in case the situation worsens. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs set up a task force to protect its nationals.[73]
Spain: The Foreign Ministry called for "de-escalation and moderation", and for compliance with "international law and the principles of the UN charter", adding that the ministry was "prepared to offer its good offices to achieve a peaceful and negotiated solution". They reiterated that they did not recognize the results of the 2024 Venezuelan presidential election and that Spain "has welcomed, and will continue to welcome, tens of thousands of Venezuelans who have had to leave their country for political reasons."[62]
Trinidad and Tobago: Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar said Trinidad and Tobago played no role in any United States military operations in Venezuela.[74]
United Kingdom: Prime Minister Keir Starmer declared "...I always say and believe we should all uphold international law," though he refused to condemn the strikes or say if they violate international law, insisting he wanted to "establish the facts first "[75]. He also clarified that the United Kingdom was not involved in the strikes.[76] The foreign office advised against all travel to Venezuela for its citizens.[77]
Uruguay: The Ministry of Foreign Relations condemned the US intervention in Venezuela, calling on the US to adhere to the UN Charter and respect Venezuela's sovereignty.[78]

Legal analysis

The legality of the strikes was questioned by Arizona senator Ruben Gallego, who stated on X that “This war is illegal” at the start of the operation.[79][80] Venezuelan defense minister Vladimir Padrino López also stated that the attacks were illegal. [81] The Foreign Minister of France Jean-Noël Barrot wrote on Twitter: “The military operation that led to the capture of Nicolás Maduro violates the principle of not resorting to force, that underpins international law. France reiterates that no lasting political solution can be imposed from the outside and that only sovereign people themselves can decide their future.”[82] The Foreign Ministry of China said that the actions “seriously violate international law, violate Venezuela’s sovereignty, and threaten the peace and security of Latin America and the Caribbean.”[83]

See also
United States–Venezuela relations
United States–Venezuela conflict
American expansionism under Donald Trump
Capture of Saddam Hussein, a similar event
Capture of Manuel Noriega, also a similar event
Manhunt (military) Subwaythangkumol6748 (talk) 16:12, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it’s not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a “change X to Y” format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Day Creature (talk) 16:30, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The current version ‘On 3 January 2026, President Trump ordered strikes inside Venezuela, including on military facilities.’ needs to be changed to ‘US president Donald Trump’ or just ‘Donald Trump’. Would someone with editting access make the change? Danke.

And the same for ‘President Trump told an interviewer on Fox News that no American soldiers were killed, but some were injured when their helicopter was hit.’ — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2025-40047-10 (talk) 16:30, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks, Glasspalace (talk • contribs) 16:33, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Danke.

User:4-RAZOR 01 moved the section on international reactions to the strikes to International reactions to the 2026 United States strikes in Venezuela. I suggest either restoring the section to this article, or also moving the reactions from the United States and Venezuela, so that all reactions are in Reactions to the 2026 United States strikes in Venezuela. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:30, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As I’ve put at that talkpage, the only reasonable course of action is to restore it here. I feel if the user who made the undiscussed split does not undo it, this should be done by any other user who can as a matter of course. Kingsif (talk) 16:34, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was best to keep domestic (US and Venezuelan) reactions on-page and instead move all other reaction to the Intl reactions page 4-RΔ𝚉🌑R-01𝕏 (talk) 16:34, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply