US President Donald Trump said on Saturday that US forces had captured Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, following what he described as a “large-scale strike” against Venezuela. Trump announced in a post on Truth Social, claiming the operation was conducted in coordination with US law enforcement agencies.
In a subsequent phone interview with The New York Times, Trump praised the operation, calling it “brilliant” and crediting extensive planning and the performance of US troops. He said he would provide further details during a news conference scheduled at his Mar-a-Lago residence in Florida. A US official later told media that Maduro was seized by elite US special forces.
Venezuela’s government reacted sharply, demanding an emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council. Foreign Minister Yvan Gil described the US action as a “criminal aggression” and said Caracas was seeking international intervention to uphold international law.
Vice President Delcy Rodríguez said authorities did not know Maduro’s whereabouts and demanded immediate proof of life for both him and Flores.
US Attorney General Pam Bondi announced that Maduro and Flores had been charged in the Southern District of New York with offences including narco-terrorism conspiracy, cocaine importation, and weapons-related crimes. Senior US officials hailed the development as a turning point, with Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau declaring that “the tyrant is gone.”
The strikes reportedly hit key military targets, including Fuerte Tiuna, Venezuela’s largest military complex, and Carlota airbase, with explosions also reported near Caracas’s airport and port facilities.
Venezuelan Defence Minister Vladimir Padrino López accused US forces of striking residential areas and vowed a full military response, while Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello said the country would endure the attacks.
International reaction has been mixed. Colombian President Gustavo Petro criticised the US action as a violation of regional sovereignty, while concerns were raised across Latin America due to memories of past US interventions. Inside the US, legal experts and lawmakers questioned the authority for the strikes, warning of potential political backlash.
