Just as fireworks and countdowns ushered in another year, headlines exploded with news that the United States had launched a military operation in Venezuela, marking the most dramatic U.S. intervention in Latin America in decades and instantly dominating global attention.
Depending on where you got your news, the story probably sounded very different. While some outlets framed the operation as a decisive move against corruption and narcotrafficking, others described it as an illegal act of aggression that could destabilize the region. Somewhere between the think-pieces, breaking news alerts, and TikTok explainers, many were left asking the same question: what is actually going on?
So, What Happened? A Quick Breakdown
On January 3, 2026, the U.S. carried out a military operation internally code-named Operation Absolute Resolve in Venezuela, targeting multiple sites across Northern Venezuela, including Caracas. According to U.S. officials, the military operation followed months of rising tension, including sanctions, naval activity, and long-standing accusations that Venezuela’s government was tied to organized crime.
Critics, however, argue that the intervention escalated far beyond diplomatic pressure. Reports of airstrikes, covert operations, and the dramatic detention of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, actions that many international legal experts say cross serous legal and ethical boundaries. Whether viewed as enforcement or overreach, the intervention immediately reignited debates about power, sovereignty, and the limits of foreign intervention.
Why Critics Are Sounding the Alarm
One of the biggest controversies surrounding the invasion is international law. Under the United Nations Charter, countries are generally prohibited from using military force against another soveriegn state unless acting in self-defense or with the approval of the U.N. Security Council. Many international law scholars argue that neither condition was clearly met in this case.
Legal experts from institutions like Cambridge and Oxford have stated that the operation appears to violate long-standing international norms, warning that it sets a dangerous precedent; if powerful countries can unilaterally invade others under the banner of “justice” or “security”, global rules start to lose their meaning. Critics further argue that morality in global politics shouldn’t be decided by whoever has the strongest military.
There’s also the historical context. For many in Latin America, U.S. military involvement isn’t new. From Guatemala to Chile to Panama, past interventions have left long-term political and social scars. Criitcs argue that the Venezuela operation fits into this larger pattern of regime change and imperial influence, raising fears about instability and regional fallout.
Follow the Oil
Another major criticism centers on energy politics. Venezuela has some of the largest proven oil reserves in the world, and analysts have questioned whether strategic and economic interests played a role in decision to intervene.
While U.S. officials deny that oil motivated the operation, skeptics point out that energy security has long influenced foreign policy decisions. In a world still heavily dependent on fossil fuels, access to oil remain a powerful incentive, and one that complicates claims that the intervention was purely about democracy or law enforcement.
Since the invasion, critics have raised alarms about the increased U.S. influence over Venezuela’s oil infrastructure, including ports, refineries, and export routes. While the U.S. government has not formally claimed ownership over Venezuelan oil, analysts argue that military presence and political leverage can effectively translate into control, determining who extracts the oil, who profits from it, and where it ends up. For critics, this blurs the line between “security assistance” and economic domination.
Same Event, Different Headlines
While some platforms emphasized crime, security threats, and strong leadership, others focused on civillian risk, international backlash, and legal violations. This story became even more simplified on social media, reduced to “hot takes” and memes.
This is where media literacy matters. The language used, “operation” versus “invasion,” “capture” versus “kidnapping,” “restoring order” versus “violating sovereignty”, shapes how we understand what’s happening. For students who get most of their news online, learning to question sources and compare perspectives is crucial.
Why We Should Care
Events like this influence global stability, energy prices, international law, and how governments justify power. They also shape the world we’ll inherit, politically, economically, and ethically. Being a global citizen doesn’t mean having all the answers or picking a side immediately. It means paying attention, questioning narratives, and recognizing that what happens abroad is connected to systems that affect us at home.
The U.S. intervention in Venezuela isn’t just another headline, it’s a moment that forces us to confront uncomfortable questions about power, legality, and whose voices get heard. As students, we don’t need to be political experts to engage with these issues. We just need to be willing to look beyond the first headline, sit with complexity, and think critically about the stories shaping our world.
References
- https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/the-us-capture-of-venezuelas-maduro-an-international-legal-analysis
- https://opiniojuris.org/2026/01/06/the-united-states-attack-against-venezuela-might-does-not-make-right/
- https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/1/13/us-faces-war-crime-allegation-for-disguising-aircraft-in-drug-boat-attack
- https://news.berkeley.edu/2026/01/13/venezuela-strike-signals-u-s-is-serious-about-reasserting-dominance-in-latin-america-uc-berkeley-scholar-says/
- https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2026-01-07-expert-comment-illegality-us-attack-against-venezuela-beyond-debate-how-world-reacts
- https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/attack-venezuela-was-unconstitutional
- https://www.aljazeera.com/video/the-bottom-line/2026/1/11/after-maduro-is-the-us-driving-global-instability