Who Owns Venezuela Now? Trump’s Words Shake the Foundations of International Law

The dramatic escalation of the United States’ actions in Venezuela has triggered one of the most volatile geopolitical moments in the Western Hemisphere in decades, raising urgent questions about sovereignty, international law, and the future of global power politics.

US President Donald Trump has issued a fresh and stark warning to Caracas, declaring that Washington is prepared to launch a “second wave of attacks” if Venezuela does “not behave.”

Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One, Trump made it clear that the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro following lethal US strikes on Caracas was not the end of American military involvement. According to Trump, the United States now holds effective control over the situation in Venezuela and will not hesitate to act again if its demands are not met.

“If they do not behave, we will carry out a second strike on Venezuela,” Trump said, adding that while another operation was ready, he hoped it would not be necessary. He went further, suggesting that Washington was now effectively “in charge” of the Latin American nation. “Don’t ask me who’s in charge because I’ll give you an answer and it’ll be very controversial,” he remarked, reinforcing the perception of an open-ended American role in Venezuela’s future.

Trump revealed that US forces had been fully prepared for a second phase of the operation but decided to hold back for now. He confirmed reports that one US helicopter was badly damaged during the assault, though he insisted that all personnel were safely recovered and that no American lives were lost. Injured service members, he said, were “all in good shape.” Describing Venezuela as a “dead country,” Trump blamed years of mismanagement for its collapse.

The US president also turned his focus to Venezuela’s vast energy reserves, demanding “total access” to the country’s oil and other resources. He criticised the low level of oil production and said major US oil companies were ready to invest heavily to rebuild infrastructure that he claimed American firms had originally constructed before it was nationalised by previous Venezuelan administrations. Trump framed the intervention as part of an effort to “get Venezuela fixed,” downplaying questions about elections by saying they would be held “at the right time.”

According to media reports, including The Guardian, the United States currently has a 15,000-strong force positioned in the Caribbean and has warned that further intervention remains an option if Venezuela’s interim leadership does not comply with American demands.

Inside Venezuela, reactions have been sharply divided. Acting president Delcy Rodríguez adopted a notably restrained tone in response to Trump’s threats, extending an invitation to Washington to engage in an “agenda of cooperation” focused on shared development and framed within international law. Emphasising peace and dialogue over conflict, Rodríguez said Venezuela sought balanced and respectful international relations and reaffirmed the country’s right to sovereignty, development, and a peaceful future.

At the same time, senior Venezuelan government and military figures demanded Maduro’s return while pledging support for Rodríguez as a stand-in leader. Defence Minister Vladimir Padrino López accused the United States of “imperial aggression,” urged citizens to resume normal life, and stated that several soldiers and civilians were killed during the American operation. Despite calls for calm, the political atmosphere in Venezuela remains deeply tense and uncertain.

Trump’s rhetoric has not been confined to Venezuela alone. On Sunday, he claimed that Cuba was “ready to fall” following Maduro’s capture, arguing that Havana would struggle to survive without subsidised Venezuelan oil. He stated that “a lot of Cubans were killed” during the US assault on Caracas, a claim echoed by Cuban authorities, who said 32 Cubans died in the attack. Trump suggested that no further action against Cuba might be necessary, saying the situation appeared to be “going down” on its own.

He also made provocative remarks about Colombia, calling its leadership “sick” and responding positively when asked whether a US operation there was possible. These comments, coupled with renewed assertions about taking over Greenland, have alarmed allies and adversaries alike. Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, alongside leaders in Greenland, strongly rejected Trump’s statements, asserting that the United States has no right to annex any part of the Danish Kingdom.

International reaction to the Venezuela operation has been swift and intense. The European Union, supported by 26 member states, called for calm, restraint, and respect for the will of the Venezuelan people as the only path to restoring democracy. EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas stressed the need to avoid escalation and pursue a peaceful resolution.

India issued its first official response with a carefully calibrated statement expressing “deep concern” while avoiding direct condemnation of the United States or explicit reference to the military strikes. The Ministry of External Affairs said it was closely monitoring developments, reiterated its concern for the safety of the Venezuelan people, and urged all parties to resolve issues through dialogue. The Indian Embassy in Caracas confirmed it was in touch with the Indian community, while a travel advisory urged Indian nationals to avoid non-essential travel to Venezuela.

India’s restrained tone has drawn scrutiny at home, especially given its long-standing emphasis on sovereignty and non-intervention. Left parties, including the CPI(M), CPI, CPI(ML)-Liberation, RSP, and the All India Forward Bloc, sharply criticised the government’s position, condemning what they described as US aggression and the “kidnapping” of Maduro and his wife. They accused Washington of exposing its true motives by openly citing Venezuela’s oil reserves and called for nationwide protests in solidarity with the Venezuelan people.

Elsewhere, reactions have been far more explicit. Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva described the operation as a “flagrant violation of international law,” while China said it was “deeply shocked” and condemned what it termed hegemonic actions threatening regional stability. South Africa called the intervention a manifest violation of the UN Charter and urged an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council.

UN Secretary-General António Guterres warned that the strikes set a dangerous precedent and convened a Security Council meeting for January 5. The UN’s Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Venezuela stressed that alleged human rights violations cannot justify military intervention that breaches international law, even as it acknowledged the Venezuelan government’s long record of repression.

Back in Caracas, Delcy Rodríguez rejected Trump’s claim that she would cooperate with Washington, denouncing the operation as an “atrocity” and demanding Maduro’s immediate release. While Venezuela’s Supreme Court later granted her temporary presidential powers to ensure administrative continuity, she made it clear that Venezuela would never again become “the colony of another empire.”

Taken together, the unfolding crisis marks a profound rupture in the post-Cold War consensus on intervention, sovereignty, and global order. With military force once again openly justified in the language of control, resources, and regime change, Venezuela has become the epicentre of a far larger debate—one that will shape not only Latin America’s future, but the credibility of international law itself.

Also Read: Venezuela's Supreme Court Appoints Vice President Delcy Rodríguez as Interim Leader Following U.S. Capture of Maduro