Caracas awoke on 3 January to quiet streets and visible damage after pre‑dawn explosions and low‑flying aircraft. Within hours, President Donald Trump said the United States had carried out a large‑scale operation in Venezuela and that Nicolás Maduro and his wife had been detained and flown out of the country. Witnesses reported blasts near key sites and power interruptions in parts of the capital. Reuters and the Associated Press described the action as the most significant U.S. intervention in Latin America since Panama in 1989.
The government in Caracas denounced what it called a “grave military aggression” and announced a national emergency. Through statements carried on state media and allied news agencies, officials said a decree had been signed activating an estado de conmoción exterior (external commotion) across the country, with mobilisation orders for civil and military structures.
Under Venezuela’s 1999 Constitution, a state of external commotion is one of several forms of estado de excepción available to the executive in situations of external conflict. Article 338 permits such a decree for up to 90 days, renewable once for a further 90 days, while Article 339 requires the decree to be presented within eight days to the National Assembly and to the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court for review.
Article 337 specifies that certain rights remain non‑derogable even in an emergency, including the right to life, the prohibitions on incommunicado detention and torture, due process guarantees and the right to information. In practice, previous decrees have restricted movement, gatherings and commercial activity while asserting control over critical infrastructure and services; any similar measures now would need to appear in the published decree and comply with the Constitution and the Organic Law on States of Exception.
Officials and state media framed the U.S. action as a kidnapping and urged citizens not to cooperate. For audiences inside Venezuela, the information environment is shaped by the 2017 Anti‑Hate Law and existing broadcast rules (Resorte‑ME), which carry severe penalties and have been used to curb speech and independent reporting online. Freedom House documents custodial sentences of 10–20 years for incitement under the 2017 law, alongside administrative sanctions on media outlets.
Criminal liability also arises under Venezuela’s Penal Code for collaboration with a foreign power or for soliciting foreign intervention. Articles 128 and 129 set penalties ranging from 20 to 30 years’ imprisonment for actions such as conspiring with a foreign nation against the state or seeking a foreign government’s intervention to depose the Venezuelan government. Authorities have historically cited these provisions during periods of heightened external tension.
On the ground, residents reported intermittent power cuts and connectivity loss in parts of southern Caracas around the time of the strikes, while main arteries remained largely empty and ad‑hoc checkpoints appeared near government sites. Network monitors and local outlets noted partial internet disruption consistent with electricity outages.
Civil aviation has been affected regionally. The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration issued a prohibition for U.S. operators at all altitudes in the Maiquetía flight information region due to ongoing military activity, prompting widespread airline cancellations and diversions across the Caribbean, according to airline and industry reports.
International reaction has focused on legality and escalation risk. Multiple governments and international bodies cited the UN Charter in criticising the use of force and called for restraint, while some leaders in the region welcomed the removal of Maduro. The split response underscores a likely period of diplomatic contest over recognition, sanctions and any interim authority in Caracas.
U.S. officials are expected to ground any prosecution of Maduro in longstanding federal indictments. The U.S. Department of Justice unsealed narco‑terrorism and cocaine importation charges against Maduro and others in 2020, accompanied by State Department reward offers; those cases, led by the Southern District of New York, outline alleged coordination with the Cartel de los Soles dating back years.
For residents and organisations inside Venezuela, the immediate practical questions are procedural. The Constitution requires publication of the decree in the Official Gazette, prompt submission to the Assembly and Constitutional Chamber, and specificity about which guarantees are restricted and for how long. Clarity on any curfew, internal movement controls, border measures and media obligations will turn on that published text.
There is precedent for sweeping restrictions during severe unrest. During the 1989 Caracazo, the executive suspended several constitutional guarantees and imposed curfews; the Inter‑American system later recorded extensive rights violations during that period. That history is central for legal and humanitarian actors assessing proportionality and oversight in any current measures.