President Donald Trump has turned a long-simmering confrontation with Caracas into an overt U.S. military intervention, capped by the capture of Nicolás Maduro and a declaration that Washington will effectively run Venezuela. The move has jolted global politics, raised basic questions about who now governs the country, and opened a volatile new chapter in U.S. foreign policy. I want to unpack what Trump’s claim of being “in charge” really means in practice, for Venezuelans, for U.S. institutions, and for the international order that was supposed to make this kind of unilateral regime change a relic.
At stake is far more than the fate of one former president in a Manhattan jail. The United States has used force to remove a sitting leader, seized control of a major oil producer’s resources, and signaled that it intends to manage another country’s political transition on its own terms. The coming weeks will test not only Trump’s promises, but also the capacity of Venezuelan institutions, regional diplomacy, and international law to constrain or channel this experiment in twenty-first century occupation without the name.
How Trump says the U.S. “captured” Maduro and took charge
Trump’s narrative starts with the operation that brought Nicolás Maduro into U.S. custody. The Pentagon described a rapid overnight mission in which U.S. troops entered Venezuelan territory, confronted security forces loyal to the government, and removed the Venezuelan leader from power. President Donald Trump praised what he called the “guts and grit” of the American forces involved, framing the capture of the Venezuelan head of state as a clean military success that removed a dictator and restored American credibility after years of confrontation with Caracas, according to the official account of the U.S. military’s capture of Maduro.
In that same narrative, Trump has been explicit that the operation was not just about removing one man, but about asserting control over the country he led. He has repeatedly said that the United States is now “in charge” of Venezuela, presenting the capture of the Venezuelan leader as the hinge that allows Washington to dictate what comes next in Caracas. In his public remarks, he has wrapped this in patriotic language about American warriors and national honor, while his Secretary of War Pete Hegseth has echoed the framing that the mission showed the “gallantry and glory of the American warrior,” as reflected in the official statements from Trump and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth.
Maduro in a U.S. jail, still claiming to be president
The military operation ended with Maduro on U.S. soil, but it did not end the question of his political status. After being flown out of Caracas, the captured Venezuelan president was taken to the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York, where he now faces U.S. drugs and weapons charges tied to long-standing allegations that his inner circle used state power to traffic narcotics. U.S. officials have stressed that the case will proceed in federal court like any other criminal prosecution, even as they acknowledge that the defendant is a former head of state whose removal was part of a broader plan to seize Venezuela’s massive oil reserves and reshape its politics, a plan laid out in detail in live coverage of Maduro’s transfer to the Metropolitan facility.
Inside a Manhattan federal courtroom, Maduro has tried to turn that prosecution into a political stage. When Judge Alvin Hellerstein pressed him on the charges, Maduro responded, “I am innocent. I am not guilty. I am a decent man. I am still president of my country,” insisting that his removal was illegitimate and that he remains the lawful leader of Venezuela despite being in a U.S. jail. His attorney Barry Pollack has reinforced that line, arguing that the case is an extension of Washington’s campaign to topple a foreign government, as reported from the hearing where Maduro declared himself innocent and “still president”.
Trump’s promise to “run” Venezuela and sell its oil
Trump has not been coy about what he wants to do with the power he claims to have seized. In public remarks after the strikes, he said bluntly that the United States is “going to run” Venezuela and that Washington will sell the country’s seized oil to fund reconstruction and compensate what he describes as victims of the Maduro regime. He framed this as a kind of trusteeship, arguing that American control is necessary to stabilize the country and that Venezuelan resources should be redirected away from corrupt elites and toward rebuilding, a vision he laid out when he said the U.S. would run Venezuela and sell its oil in a press conference about the strikes.
He has repeated that message in more political settings, telling supporters that the United States will “run” Venezuela until there is what he calls an orderly transition and free elections. In one set of remarks, he vowed that Washington is “going to run” the country and compared the intervention to earlier U.S. wars, signaling that he sees this as a defining project of his presidency rather than a short, sharp operation. That rhetoric has drawn comparisons to the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and has fueled criticism that Trump is embracing open-ended occupation, as reflected in coverage of his vow that the U.S. will “run” Venezuela Donald Trump.
Who is actually running Venezuela right now?
On the ground, the picture is far murkier than Trump’s slogans suggest. He has said that the United States is “in charge” of Venezuela and that American forces and advisers are working with local partners to manage security and basic services. At the same time, he has acknowledged that he is “dealing with the people that just got sworn in” inside Venezuela and has brushed off questions about who, exactly, holds formal authority, telling reporters not to ask him who is in charge. That ambiguity has been captured in reporting on the mixed messages from Trump and Rubio on who is running Venezuela.
Trump has also doubled down on his claim that “we’re in charge,” even as Venezuelan institutions try to assert their own continuity. Local courts, including the Supreme Court in Caracas, have signaled that they still see themselves as the ultimate arbiters of constitutional authority, and a new slate of officials has been sworn in under Venezuelan law. Yet Trump continues to insist that U.S. troops captured the Venezuelan leader and that Washington now effectively controls the country, a stance he has maintained in interviews where Trump says he is in charge of Venezuela and vows to stick to his original claim.
Congress, courts and the U.S. political fight over the intervention
Back in Washington, Trump’s decision has scrambled domestic politics. Speaker Mike Johnson has embraced the operation, declaring that President Donald Trump’s ousting of Nicolas Maduro as leader of Venezuela is a major victory and promising that the House will move quickly to support the mission. He has said lawmakers will travel to discuss Venezuela and has framed the intervention as a necessary step to confront a hostile regime, as reflected in live updates where Speaker Mike Johnson praised President Donald Trump’s move against Nicolas Maduro.
At the same time, the courts are being asked to referee the limits of Trump’s power. The criminal case against Maduro in Manhattan will test how far U.S. judges are willing to go in treating a captured foreign leader like any other defendant, while legal scholars debate whether the operation complied with U.S. law on the use of force. Members of Congress are also pressing for clarity on the administration’s endgame, with some warning that an open-ended commitment to “run” Venezuela could drag the United States into a long occupation. Those concerns are sharpened by Trump’s own comments that the U.S. has to “run” Venezuela “right” before presidential elections can be held, a timeline he sketched in remarks covered in a live blog on his plans for elections in Venezuela.
International law, the U.N. and a shaken global order
Outside the United States, the intervention has landed like a thunderclap. The United Nations has been forced to confront the spectacle of a permanent Security Council member using force to remove a sitting leader without clear multilateral authorization. Secretary-General António Guterres, through his political chief Rosemary A. DiCarlo, has warned that the crisis in Venezuela risks destabilizing regional peace and security and has urged all parties to respect international law and the U.N. Charter. In formal remarks to the Security Council, the Secretary-General’s statements stressed the need to avoid further escalation and to protect civilians.
For many governments, the combination of a unilateral military strike, the capture of a head of state, and an explicit pledge to “run” another country crosses multiple red lines at once. It raises questions about the future of norms against regime change, the credibility of the Security Council, and the willingness of other powers to accept U.S. control over a major oil producer. Regional organizations are weighing how to respond, while some states that previously backed sanctions on Caracas now worry that they have enabled a precedent they cannot control. The longer Trump insists that Washington is “in charge” of Venezuela, the more pressure there will be on multilateral bodies to either endorse or confront that claim.
Venezuelan institutions, elections and the question of sovereignty
Inside Venezuela, the struggle is now as much institutional as military. Trump has said that elections in Venezuela should take place only after the United States has stabilized the country and ensured that they will be “right,” suggesting that Washington will play a direct role in shaping the electoral calendar and rules. He has tied that to his broader argument that the U.S. must oversee a transition before handing power back, a stance that has been detailed in coverage of his insistence that elections in Venezuela be delayed until after U.S. management.
Venezuelan bodies, including the National Assembly and the Supreme Court, are trying to assert that they, not Washington, remain the ultimate source of sovereignty. New officials have been sworn in under domestic law, and rival factions claim to represent the legitimate government. The presence of U.S. troops and advisers complicates that picture, as does the fact that the former president is in a New York jail. For ordinary Venezuelans, the result is a confusing mix of local decrees, foreign directives, and uncertainty about who can actually guarantee security, pay salaries, or sign binding contracts.
Cilia Flores, the Maduro inner circle and U.S. leverage
The fate of Maduro’s closest allies is another lever in Washington’s new strategy. His wife, Cilia Adela Flores de Maduro, has long been a central figure in Venezuelan politics, serving as a deputy in the National Assembly of Venezuela of which she was president from 2006 to 2011 for her home state. She has now been swept up in the U.S. dragnet, with reports that she was brought to the United States in 2026 alongside her husband, a trajectory outlined in biographical accounts of Cilia Flores and her role in the National Assembly of Venezuela of.
By holding both Maduro and Cilia Flores, U.S. authorities have significant leverage over the former ruling circle, but they also deepen the perception that Washington is decapitating an entire political movement rather than targeting individual crimes. That could complicate efforts to persuade remaining officials and military commanders to cooperate with a transition, since they may fear that any deal will end with them in a U.S. courtroom. It also raises the stakes for any future negotiations over amnesty, exile, or power sharing, since the personal futures of Maduro’s family and allies are now directly tied to decisions made in Washington and New York.
Oil, sanctions and the economics of “running” Venezuela
At the heart of Trump’s plan is control over Venezuela’s oil. He has said that the United States will seize and sell Venezuelan crude, presenting it as both punishment for the former regime and a way to fund reconstruction and compensate victims. In his own words, he made clear that the U.S. would “run” the country and its resources, a stance that was spelled out when President Trump said the U.S. would control Venezuelan oil after accusing Maduro’s entourage of using state aircraft that his administration says were carrying drugs.
That approach collides with years of sanctions policy that tried to squeeze Caracas without outright expropriation. Now, with Trump openly talking about selling seized oil and using the proceeds as Washington sees fit, investors, neighboring states and energy markets are all trying to gauge how durable this new regime will be. If the U.S. truly intends to “run” Venezuela’s oil sector, it will have to manage everything from decaying infrastructure to complex joint ventures, all while facing legal challenges from companies and states that claim existing contracts are being violated. The economic dimension of the intervention may prove just as difficult to manage as the political one, especially if oil revenues become a flashpoint for corruption or mismanagement under U.S. oversight.
What comes next for Venezuelans and U.S. power
For Venezuelans, the immediate future is a mix of hope, fear and exhaustion. Some see the removal of Maduro as a chance to escape years of economic collapse and repression, especially if new leadership can emerge under some form of international supervision. Others view the U.S. presence as a fresh form of domination that risks turning their country into a battleground for foreign interests. Reports from Caracas describe both relief at the end of Maduro’s rule and anxiety about what it means to have foreign troops and foreign courts shaping the country’s destiny, a tension captured in coverage of the U.S. military attack on Venezuela and the mixed reactions it has provoked.
For the United States, Trump’s claim that America has captured Maduro and will run Venezuela is a test of how far U.S. power can be stretched without breaking domestic and international constraints. If the administration can stabilize the country, organize credible elections and withdraw on a clear timetable, it will argue that it has reinvented regime change for a new era. If, instead, Venezuela slides into protracted conflict, institutional breakdown or a quagmire of occupation, the operation will be remembered as a cautionary tale. As I see it, the gap between Trump’s confident declarations and the messy realities on the ground will define not only Venezuela’s next chapter, but also the legacy of this moment for U.S. foreign policy.
More From TheDailyOverview
Grant Mercer covers market dynamics, business trends, and the economic forces driving growth across industries. His analysis connects macro movements with real-world implications for investors, entrepreneurs, and professionals. Through his work at The Daily Overview, Grant helps readers understand how markets function and where opportunities may emerge.
