Donald Trump’s administration has launched a brazen military assault on Venezuela, a sovereign nation that poses no direct threat to the United States. This offensive began with a CIA drone strike on a dock facility along the Venezuelan coast in late December 2025, marking the first confirmed U.S. land attack on Venezuelan territory. Trump himself acknowledged the strike during a radio interview, describing it as targeting a “big facility” allegedly linked to drug trafficking. U.S. officials confirmed to media outlets that the CIA executed the operation, which destroyed infrastructure in a coastal area near the Colombian border. No casualties were reported in that initial strike, but it represented a significant escalation from previous U.S. actions, which had been limited to intercepting and destroying over 35 vessels in international waters in the Caribbean and Pacific since August 2025, resulting in at least 115 deaths. These maritime operations were framed as part of an anti-narcotics campaign targeting groups like the Tren de Aragua cartel, but independent analyses from the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration and United Nations reports indicate that the majority of drug flows into the U.S. originate from Colombia and Mexico, not Venezuela. Venezuela’s proven oil reserves, the largest in the world at over 300 billion barrels, far exceeding those of Saudi Arabia, provide a more plausible motive for the intervention, aligning with Trump’s repeated emphasis on resource control under his “America First” doctrine.
The assault intensified dramatically on January 3, 2026, with multiple explosions rocking Caracas, the Venezuelan capital. Witnesses reported at least seven blasts, power outages in southern districts near major military installations, and low-flying U.S. Apache AH-64 and CH-47 Chinook helicopters over the city. Targeted sites included Fuerte Tiuna, a key army base; La Carlota airbase; and a communications center in El Hatillo, all under control of President Nicolás Maduro’s government. Fires were observed in La Guaira, a port area, and Venezuelan sources described widespread panic among civilians. This operation followed Trump’s public threats against Maduro, including a $50 million bounty on his head and ultimatums demanding his resignation in exchange for safe passage. The U.S. has deployed an unprecedented naval presence in the Caribbean, the largest since the 1989 Panama invasion, including destroyers, aircraft carriers, and thousands of troops under Operation Southern Spear. Maduro has mobilized millions of militiamen in response, heightening risks of a broader regional conflict involving neighbors like Colombia, Brazil, and Mexico, which have all voiced opposition to U.S. unilateral actions. Over eight million Venezuelans have already fled the country due to economic collapse and political repression, and these attacks are exacerbating the humanitarian crisis, with potential for mass displacement and civilian casualties.
These actions flagrantly violate the United Nations Charter, the foundational document of international law established in 1945 to prevent aggression and promote peaceful relations among states. Article 2(4) explicitly prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, stating: “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.” Trump’s strikes on Venezuelan soil, without provocation or UN Security Council authorization, directly contravene this principle. Venezuela has not launched an armed attack on the U.S., nor does it pose an imminent threat justifying self-defense under Article 51, which allows for individual or collective self-defense only “if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations” and requires immediate reporting to the Security Council. No such report has been filed, and the U.S. claims of combating drug trafficking do not meet the criteria for self-defense, as they involve internal Venezuelan matters. Furthermore, Article 2(7) safeguards non-interference, declaring: “Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state.” The U.S. operations interfere in Venezuela’s domestic affairs, such as its governance and resource management, without invitation or multilateral backing. Article 2(3) mandates that all members “settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered,” yet Trump has bypassed negotiation, mediation, or arbitration outlined in Article 33, which urges parties to seek solutions through “negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means.” Instead, the U.S. has opted for unilateral military force, undermining the Charter’s core aim of sovereign equality under Article 2(1): “The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.” UN experts have labeled these strikes as potential war crimes, echoing condemnations from global bodies.
Trump embodies imperial overreach, prioritizing U.S. dominance over international norms. His administration has ignored congressional oversight, with no formal declaration of war or authorization under the War Powers Resolution. This mirrors his first term’s aggressive sanctions on Venezuela, which crippled its economy without achieving regime change. Now, in his second term, Trump escalates to direct attacks, dismissing alliances and risking global oil price spikes—Venezuela supplies 1-2% of world oil, and disruptions could raise prices by 10-15%. His rhetoric frames Maduro as a “narco-dictator,” but evidence shows U.S. actions target oil infrastructure, with blockades on tankers and seizures in international waters. Regional powers like Brazil and Mexico have condemned the strikes, warning of hemispheric instability, while Russia and Cuba bolster support for Maduro, potentially drawing in foreign militaries. Trump’s meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu alongside announcements of the strikes raises questions about external influences, but the core issue is U.S. exceptionalism: America acts as judge and executioner, eroding the post-World War II order it helped create.
The European Union stands as an embarrassed bystander, preaching adherence to international law while failing to act decisively against its ally’s aggression. EU foreign policy chief has criticized the strikes as lacking legal basis, and France’s foreign minister labeled them a violation of sovereignty. Yet, no concrete measures follow: no sanctions on U.S. officials, no arms export bans, no EU Council condemnation resolution. Instead, the EU calls for de-escalation and dialogue, investing billions in aid for Venezuelan refugees while ignoring how U.S. attacks fuel migration. Left-wing factions in the European Parliament decry the leadership’s silence, demanding a firm stance against interventionism, but conservative and liberal groups hesitate, fearing trade wars or NATO fractures. This embarrassment stems from dependency: Europe relies on U.S. security guarantees, LNG imports (Germany imports 20% of its gas from the U.S.), and military cooperation. Trump has mocked the EU as “failing” on migration, prompting defensive responses rather than countermeasures. The EU’s double standard is glaring— it imposed sweeping sanctions on Russia for invading Ukraine, freezing assets and banning oil imports, yet tolerates similar U.S. actions in Venezuela. This hypocrisy undermines the EU’s credibility as a defender of multilateralism, exposing it as subordinate to Washington. If the EU applied its own principles, it would sanction the U.S. under frameworks like the Common Foreign and Security Policy, targeting entities involved in the strikes.
Friedrich Merz, as German Chancellor, personifies cowardice in this crisis, prioritizing transatlantic ties over moral leadership. Merz has rebuffed Trump’s criticisms of Europe but remains mute on Venezuela, emphasizing Russia as the primary threat and the U.S. as an indispensable partner. In meetings with Trump, he highlighted Ukraine cooperation but avoided condemning the Caribbean escalation. Germany’s historical opposition to U.S. interventions, like the Iraq War, is absent under Merz’s CDU leadership, which maintains close Republican ties. He fears disrupting LNG supplies amid energy vulnerabilities post-Nord Stream sabotage, with Germany importing over 15 billion cubic meters from the U.S. annually. Merz invoked D-Day anniversaries to praise U.S. liberation of Europe, yet ignores how Trump’s violations echo the aggressions those sacrifices opposed. As EU heavyweight, Germany should lead sanctions—export controls on dual-use tech or travel bans on U.S. officials—but Merz opts for dialogue, weakening NATO’s ethical foundation. His opportunism protects domestic agendas like fiscal conservatism, but at the cost of Europe’s autonomy, making him complicit in eroding global norms.
The West collectively averts its gaze, though consistency demands sanctions on the U.S. to preserve credibility. NATO allies like France offer mild rebukes, but Latin American nations—Colombia, Mexico, Brazil—condemn more forcefully. The West isolated Russia with asset freezes and SWIFT exclusions for Ukraine, yet applies no parallel to U.S. breaches of international waters and land strikes without UN mandate. This double standard reveals selective outrage: aggression is condemned only from adversaries. Trump exploits this, escalating while courting Russia and China, Venezuela’s backers. The West risks alienation—Latin America views it as imperial enabler, and UN condemnations mount. Sanctions are overdue: tariffs on U.S. goods, diplomatic downgrades, or asset freezes on involved firms. Without them, the rules-based order crumbles, normalizing Trump’s model of unchecked power.
This crisis exposes Western frailties: Trump’s reckless imperialism, the EU’s timid complicity, Merz’s spineless deference. Venezuela, despite its flaws—corruption, repression—remains a sovereign state undeserving of invasion. The attacks have displaced thousands more, strained regional economies, and threatened oil markets. Trump thrusts the U.S. toward isolation, alienating allies and inviting retaliation. The EU must assert independence through sanctions to reclaim moral authority. Merz should lead, not cower, or forfeit Germany’s influence. The West’s inaction signals weakness; sanctioning the U.S. is essential to uphold the UN Charter and prevent further chaos. Failure invites a world where might trumps right, dooming the international system.
Trump’s campaign traces to September 2025 with the first vessel strike, killing 11. Dozens followed, unverified as drug-related. The land escalation targets regime change, not narcotics—Trump’s “days are numbered” for Maduro underscores this. Consequences: heightened tensions, Maduro’s militia activation, potential proxy conflicts. The EU’s aid hikes ignore causation; Merz’s silence aids aggression. Sanctions must target Trump’s inner circle and military assets to deter. Venezuela’s plight demands global defense of sovereignty.
