On Saturday at 2 a.m. in Caracas, Venezuelans woke up to the kind of headline that feels unreal until you refresh five times and it still sits there: The U.S. launched a military operation in Venezuela and captured Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, then flew them to the United States to face federal charges. NPR described it as a “daring middle-of-the-night raid,” with U.S. forces capturing Maduro and sending him to New York to stand trial.

By Monday, the story had moved from shock to fallout. According to Reuters, Maduro arrived at a Manhattan federal court for a hearing as the U.N. Security Council prepared to debate the legality of the raid. And at the emergency meeting, the U.N. secretary general warned about instability and the precedent this could set, stressing “full respect by all for international law,” and saying he remained “deeply concerned that rules of international law have not been respected.”

What does any of this mean for Venezuelans inside the country and across the diaspora? And why did Trump’s messaging swing from drugs to oil to claiming the U.S. will “run” Venezuela?

So what exactly happened in Venezuela on Saturday?

According to Reuters, U.S. Special Forces “swooped into Caracas on helicopters” over the weekend and captured Maduro, later moving him from a Brooklyn detention center to Manhattan federal court on Monday.

The Guardian reported that Venezuela requested an emergency U.N. Security Council meeting, supported by Russia and China, and accused the U.S. of “brutal, unjustified, and unilateral armed attacks” and of violating the U.N. charter.

Inside the U.S., the administration and its allies pushed a framing that this was law enforcement and national security, not a war. But the visuals, the timing, and the removal of a sitting leader made it feel like something else entirely.

The narco-trafficking argument keeps coming back

The White House and its top officials keep returning to a familiar justification: narco-terrorism and drug trafficking.

According to Reuters, Maduro faces U.S. federal accusations tied to an alleged cocaine trafficking network and partnerships with violent groups. Reuters reported that Maduro is accused of overseeing a network that partnered with groups including Mexico’s Sinaloa and Zetas cartels, Colombian FARC rebels, and Venezuela’s Tren de Aragua gang.

The Guardian also summarized the case as an indictment alleging that Maduro and other Venezuelan leaders abused state institutions to “import tons of cocaine into the United States,” and that Maduro faces charges including narco-terrorism conspiracy and cocaine importation conspiracy.

Even so, the administration’s messaging has not stayed in one lane.

Venezuela and the oil obsession

Trump’s comments on oil have sat at the center of the backlash, including among people who wanted Maduro out but fear what “intervention” looks like when it comes wrapped in resource claims.

During Saturday’s news conference, Trump “stressed oil as a key motivator,” and said American oil companies would go in, modernize production and refining, and invest billions. What shocked the world the most was Trump’s long-running rhetoric about “take the oil,” including his past claim that taking oil is “reimbursing ourselves.”

Reuters reported that Trump has “made no bones about wanting to share in Venezuela’s oil riches,” and that he has threatened further action if Venezuela does not cooperate with opening its oil industry and stopping drugs.

A quick oil history lesson

Here is the part many Venezuelans know by memory, but it still helps to lay it out clearly.

Venezuela discovered massive oil deposits in the early 20th century, and foreign companies dominated production for years. By the 1930s, three foreign companies controlled most of the country’s oil output, including Royal Dutch Shell and U.S. firms.

In 1943, Venezuela passed the Hydrocarbons Law, requiring companies to give the state a much larger share of profits. Then, on January 1, 1976, Venezuela nationalized the oil industry and created PDVSA to run it, shifting control away from foreign operators.

Decades later, the Chávez era reshaped PDVSA and the industry’s relationship with foreign companies. A PDVSA strike in 2002 and the 2007 expropriations of assets from firms that refused to restructure under majority PDVSA control sparked long legal battles. They hardened the political storyline that U.S. companies were pushed out.

Reuters also highlighted the big picture: Venezuela holds the world’s largest oil reserves, about 303 billion barrels, but the sector declined for years due to mismanagement, under-investment, and U.S. sanctions.

That context explains why oil keeps reappearing in U.S. political language about Venezuela, especially under Trump.

Why Trump thinks the U.S. has oil in Venezuela

Trump and his allies have framed Venezuela’s oil history as a theft story.

NPR reported that Trump has repeatedly argued the U.S. should “take the oil,” and cited his previous remarks about Venezuela, including saying the U.S. “would have taken it over” and “would have gotten all that oil.”

Reuters reported that Trump has also justified the capture by referencing the nationalization of U.S. oil interests decades ago and claiming “We’re taking back what they stole,” while saying “We’re in charge.”

This is the core of the argument: Trump talks like the U.S. holds a rightful claim to Venezuelan oil through past corporate investment and expropriation. That is different from saying the U.S. literally owns Venezuelan reserves. It is a political claim, rooted in grievances over nationalization and later expropriations, and it is now shaping U.S. policy language in real time.

Who runs Venezuela now, and where does Machado fit?

This is where the uncertainty turns sharp.

According to Reuters, Maduro’s senior officials still hold power inside Venezuela, and Delcy Rodríguez has served as the acting president. Reuters reported that after initial defiance, Rodríguez signaled possible cooperation, saying: “We invite the U.S. government to work together on an agenda of cooperation.”

At the same time, Reuters reported that Trump has “sidelined for now the Venezuelan opposition,” and dismissed opposition leader and “Nobel Peace Prize winner Maria Corina Machado” as lacking support. The Atlantic also reported a direct Trump threat toward Rodríguez, saying that “if she doesn’t do what’s right, she is going to pay a very big price, probably bigger than Maduro,” and described Trump reaffirming that the U.S. may temporarily “run” the country.

For many Venezuelans around the world, this is an emotional contradiction. People wanted the regime to fall. People also want Venezuelans, not foreign governments, to hold the steering wheel. And the big unanswered question remains: if Trump claims he removed an “illegitimate” government, why does he now signal he will work with the same governing apparatus, while sidelining the opposition that claims an electoral mandate?

For now, the facts on the ground point to a transition shaped by force, courts, and negotiations, with oil sitting at the center of the table.

Tags:

Share this Story