What happened?
On 29 December, US President Donald Trump stated that the US struck a drug boat loading facility inside Venezuela, making it the first known US land-based operation in the country as part of the escalating pressure campaign against President Nicolás Maduro.
On 24 December, the White House ordered US military forces to focus almost exclusively on enforcing a "quarantine" of Venezuelan oil exports for at least the next two months, prioritising economic pressure over further military escalation.
On 20 December, the US Coast Guard, with Pentagon support, seized a second sanctioned oil tanker off Venezuela's coast carrying Venezuelan crude.
On 16 December, President Trump ordered a blockade of all sanctioned oil tankers entering or leaving Venezuela, targeting the government's primary revenue source.
On 10 December, the US seized the first sanctioned oil tanker, the Skipper, off Venezuela's coast, carrying approximately 1.8 million barrels of crude, escalating tensions and boosting global oil prices.
On 3 December, Democratic Senators Tim Kaine, Chuck Schumer and Adam Schiff, along with Republican Senator Rand Paul, filed a War Powers resolution requiring congressional approval for any military action against Venezuela. They said: "Unauthorized military action against Venezuela would be a colossal and costly mistake that needlessly risks the lives of our servicemembers."
On 29 November, Trump posted on Truth Social: “To all Airlines, Pilots, Drug Dealers, and Human Traffickers, please consider THE AIRSPACE ABOVE AND SURROUNDING VENEZUELA TO BE CLOSED IN ITS ENTIRETY.” Venezuela's government condemned the remarks as a "colonialist threat" against the country's sovereignty and contrary to international law.
On 27 November, Trump, while addressing US military service members, stated: "We'll be starting to stop them by land also. The land is easier, but that's going to start very soon."
In November, the US designated the "Cartel de los Soles” as a foreign terrorist organization.
In October, President Trump authorised the CIA to conduct covert operations in Venezuela to disrupt alleged narcotics trafficking and increase pressure on the Maduro government.
In September, US forces launched the first lethal strike on a suspected drug-smuggling vessel off the Venezuelan coast, initiating a series of 22 strikes by mid-December that killed at least 87 people on boats alleged to be linked to Venezuelan narco-trafficking.
What are the issues?
First, the US allegations of Venezuelan narco-terrorism and its counternarcotics campaign. At the crux of the 2025 escalation is Washington’s accusation that President Nicolás Maduro and his inner circle lead the “Cartel de los Soles.” The US claims this network, alongside gangs like Tren de Aragua, funnels fentanyl and other drugs into America. Washington views Maduro’s government as illegitimate, framing the actions as necessary to combat “narco-terrorism.” Caracas views the US actions as a regime-change effort disguised as counternarcotics operations, aimed at exploiting Venezuela's natural resources in the backdrop of economic collapse and with nearly 7.9 million refugee exodus, according to the UNHCR.
Second, Trump vs. the Venezuelan political leadership. Nicolás Maduro has been in power in Venezuela since 2013 and was re-elected in 2024, a vote dismissed as fraudulent by the US and Western allies. President Maduro rejects allegations of drug links, condemning the strikes as sovereignty violations and potential war crimes. In response, Venezuela has mobilised weapons and is reportedly preparing for a guerrilla-style resistance in the event of a US attack, while seeking additional support from Russia and China. Diplomatic options have narrowed after a brief call with Trump last month in which, it is reported, Maduro sought amnesty and sanctions relief as part of a negotiated exit. Trump rejected most requests but offered a one-week safe passage for Maduro and his family. This safe passage offer expired on 28 November, reportedly prompting Trump's airspace declaration and further hardening positions.
Third, opposition within the US, and the White House's response. President Trump has repeatedly stated that a land attack on Venezuela would begin "very soon," leading to bipartisan concern. A group of Democratic and Republican Senators have filed a war powers resolution. Under Senate rules, the resolution must come to a vote within days. Lawmakers from both parties have also expressed alarm over reports that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered a second strike on survivors of the 2 September attack, potentially violating international law. The White House maintains that the operation was lawful. Spokesperson Karoline Leavitt stated that Hegseth had authorised the strikes, which were conducted to protect US interests, occurred in international waters and complied with the law of armed conflict. Previous attempts in Congress to require Trump to seek authorisation for actions against Venezuela have repeatedly failed, with Senate Republicans blocking resolutions in October and November.
What does it mean for 2026?
First, sustained economic and military pressure on Venezuela with risks of further escalation. By the end of 2025, the US shifted from threats of land invasions to a prolonged “quarantine” of Venezuelan oil exports, seizing tankers and striking a drug facility on Venezuelan soil for the first time. This approach, combining strikes, the first land-based operation, covert operations, and economic blockade, implies that Washington intends to maintain intense pressure on President Maduro. These developments have raised concerns that Washington is moving beyond counternarcotics operations toward potential intervention. Although US actions are framed as targeting "narco-terrorists," the scale of military activity goes beyond typical counternarcotics efforts. Diplomatically, options are narrowing for President Maduro. The situation seems fragile; any misstep carries the potential to rapidly translate into a broader conflict.
Second, within the US, there are tensions over executive authority. The bipartisan war powers resolution has reopened debates over the limits of executive authority in authorising the use of force. After two failed earlier attempts, a vote now tests the extent of congressional support for President Trump's approach. It could also expose divisions within the Republican Party and reflect broader constitutional concerns about executive overreach, especially if any major escalations occur without legislative approval.
About the author
R. Preetha is a Postgraduate student from Stella Maris College, Chennai.
