Allegations of Stolen Oil and Property
By mid-December 2025, the administration adopted a new justification, contending that Venezuela had “stolen” American oil and land. Trump referred to nationalization policies of the 1970s that compelled foreign firms to relinquish control of local reserves. In a 17 December social-media post—issued while, according to officials, final authorization for the January operation was under review—Trump warned that U.S. military pressure would intensify “until such time as they return to the United States of America all of the oil, land, and other assets that they previously stole from us.”
Senior adviser Stephen Miller echoed the claim online, describing Venezuela’s nationalization of its oil industry as “the largest recorded theft of American wealth and property.”
Emphasis on Illegitimacy and Security Threats
On 19 December, Secretary of State Marc Rubio offered a broader national-security rationale, labeling Maduro’s presidency illegitimate and accusing Caracas of collaborating with unspecified terrorist and criminal organizations. “We have no cooperation,” Rubio said, characterizing the Venezuelan government as openly hostile toward U.S. interests.
Rubio, whose political career has prominently featured opposition to socialist governments in the Caribbean, has long argued that Venezuelan crude underpins allied regimes in the region, including Cuba’s, creating what he calls a persistent hemispheric threat.
Escalation Ahead of the Ground Assault
The Pentagon acknowledged a separate U.S. action on 29 December, when forces struck a dock facility inside Venezuela. That incident marked the first public admission of a land attack and signaled a departure from earlier maritime and aerial patrols. Trump later confirmed the dock strike, calling it a warning against further “anti-American acts.”
In the days that followed, U.S. intelligence and special-operations units reportedly finalized plans for the 3 January raid. Officials familiar with the timeline said the president received a final briefing at the White House on New Year’s Day, hours after publicly disclosing details of a medical imaging appointment unrelated to the operation.
Operation and Immediate Aftermath
Defense Department statements released Sunday indicated that combined air and ground elements targeted multiple sites in and around Caracas, neutralizing Venezuelan military resistance and apprehending Maduro without reported U.S. casualties. The department described the mission as “large scale,” but withheld operational specifics pending debriefings.
Venezuela’s interim government—installed following the arrests of senior officials—condemned the action as a “grave military aggression” and called for an emergency session at regional forums. Foreign ministries across Latin America issued varied responses, with some governments demanding clarification of Washington’s long-term objectives.
Continued Questions on Strategic Intent
The absence of a consistent narrative has prompted renewed scrutiny from lawmakers and analysts who recall Trump’s 2024 campaign pledge to avoid new foreign conflicts. Congressional committees have requested classified briefings on the legal authority invoked for the strike and on plans for post-capture stabilization inside Venezuela.
Defense officials maintain that the deployment remains limited to strategic targets and that no broader occupation is planned. However, the administration has not detailed how long U.S. forces will remain in the country or what conditions would trigger a withdrawal.
As debates intensify in Washington, attention is shifting toward potential economic repercussions. Global energy markets are watching closely for any disruption to Venezuelan exports, while legal experts predict protracted arbitration over assets previously nationalized by Caracas.
Crédito da imagem: Original Source
