The aftermath of the military operation conducted by the United States in Venezuela, which included a surprise strike resulting in the capture of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, and their subsequent transfer to New York to face federal charges, clearly illustrates how global responses have been severely fragmented due to intense legal, diplomatic, and moral debates.
On January 5, 2026, Maduro appeared in a Manhattan federal court, pleading not guilty to narcotics, weapons, and conspiracy charges imposed by U.S. prosecutors. During the brief prosecution, he denounced his detention as a “kidnapping”. “I’m innocent. I’m not guilty. I am a decent man,” the captured Venezuelan president told a judge in Manhattan federal court. “I am still president of my country.” The captured Venezuelan president insisted that he remains the legitimate president of Venezuela, a characterisation that reflects a broader conflict over the legality and legitimacy of the U.S. action. These events followed a dramatic U.S. military strike in Caracas and other locations described by U.S. officials as necessary to bring Maduro to justice and disrupt alleged narcotrafficking networks. However, that action was condemned by many foreign governments as a violation of national sovereignty and international law.
Pope Leo XIV, addressing pilgrims in St Peter’s Square on January 4, expressed his “deep concern” about the evolving crisis and encouraged deep respect for Venezuelan sovereignty, the rule of law, and the protection of human and civil rights, emphasising that “the good of the beloved Venezuelan people must prevail over every other consideration” and stating that violence should be overcome through justice, peace, and cooperation. His remarks highlighted the moral and humanitarian dimension of the crisis at a moment of high geopolitical tension, as the Pontiff appealed for paths of justice and peace and drew attention to the needs of the Venezuelan poor amid the broader turmoil.
Across Latin America and Europe, leaders strongly objected to the U.S. intervention. Brazil’s president condemned the military strikes as crossing “an unacceptable line” and violating Venezuelan sovereignty, urging the United Nations to act.
Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum reaffirmed her country’s firm rejection of foreign military involvement and insisted that sovereignty and self‑determination are “neither optional nor negotiable.”
At the United Nations Security Council, representatives from France, Denmark, China, Russia, Colombia, and others criticised the U.S.’s action, asserting that it breached the UN Charter and risked setting a dangerous precedent for international conduct.
U.N. Secretary‑General António Guterres described the intervention as having “worrying implications for the region.” European Union officials also called for de‑escalation and respect for international legal norms, while some nations insisted that Venezuela’s future must be decided through peaceful, negotiated means, not by force.
This convergence of legal drama, religious appeal, and widespread diplomatic condemnation illustrates the profound global controversy surrounding the U.S. military action in Venezuela, spotlighting deep rifts over sovereignty, international law, and the future of Venezuelan governance.
