Venezuela operation and political aftermath
U.S. officials and major media continued to detail the operation that captured Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro and brought him to the United States. According to CNN and Reuters, U.S. Special Forces conducted a nighttime raid in Caracas, seizing Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, after coordinated strikes on Venezuelan air defenses and other targets. The pair were first taken to a U.S. Navy vessel, then via Guantánamo Bay to Stewart Air National Guard Base in New York, and are now being held at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, facing U.S. drug-trafficking, narco‑terrorism and weapons charges.
Venezuela’s Supreme Court directed Vice President Delcy Rodríguez to assume the powers of acting president on the grounds that Maduro is “materially and temporarily” unable to serve, as reported by CNN’s live coverage. Rodríguez and other senior officials denounced the U.S. operation as a kidnapping and demanded Maduro’s immediate release. Regional and global reactions were mixed: Argentina’s President Javier Milei welcomed what he called Venezuela’s “freedom,” while Mexico, Brazil, Russia and China condemned the U.S. action, with Beijing calling for Maduro’s release and labeling the raid a violation of Venezuelan sovereignty.
U.S. military officials described the mission, code‑named “Operation Absolute Resolve,” as the result of months of planning. Joint Chiefs Chair Gen. Dan Caine told reporters the operation involved roughly 150 aircraft launching from about 20 bases across the Western Hemisphere, precision strikes on Venezuelan air defenses, cyber operations, and a helicopter-borne team that entered Maduro’s compound around 2 a.m. local time in Caracas. CNN’s reconstruction also reported that a covert CIA team had been operating inside Venezuela since mid‑2025 to map Maduro’s movements and that an earlier drone strike targeted a remote coastal facility the U.S. said was used by a Venezuelan criminal group.
At a press conference at Mar‑a‑Lago, President Donald Trump said the United States would “run” Venezuela on a temporary basis until a “safe, proper and judicious transition” is arranged, and he did not rule out additional strikes if the remaining Venezuelan authorities do not cooperate, according to Reuters. Trump said he was “not afraid of boots on the ground” and asserted that the cost of any extended U.S. role would be covered by Venezuela’s oil revenues. Retired military officers quoted by CNN said they expect a substantial U.S. military presence offshore to remain in place as leverage during the political transition, though Washington has not announced any formal timeline or end state.
Rubio’s public defense of the operation and hemispheric policy
Secretary of State Marco Rubio used appearances on three major Sunday programs—NBC’s Meet the Press, ABC’s This Week, and CBS’s Face the Nation—to confirm and defend the operation. In all three State Department–published transcripts, Rubio described Maduro as an “indicted narcoterrorist” and “illegitimate former Venezuelan dictator” now in U.S. custody facing justice in the Southern District of New York. He repeatedly framed the raid as part of a broader campaign against drug‑trafficking organizations and “narco‑terror networks,” insisting the United States is “not at war with Venezuela” as a country.
Rubio said U.S. forces were on the ground in Venezuela for “about two hours” during the capture and denied any sustained U.S. military presence in the country. On ABC, he added that the Department of War conducted limited operations to protect arresting agents and neutralize immediate threats, but he maintained that the mission was narrowly focused and time‑bound. Across the interviews, he emphasized that Chevron is currently the only U.S. oil company still operating in Venezuela under existing sanctions relief.
On legal authority, Rubio argued the raid did not require prior congressional authorization, stating that the president retains constitutional power to act against imminent and urgent threats. He said the administration would seek congressional approval for actions that legally require it and otherwise provide the notifications mandated by statute. He also stressed that the United States has been obtaining court warrants to seize sanctioned oil shipments and “drug boats” under what he and the White House describe as an ongoing “oil quarantine,” and that such measures will continue as leverage on Caracas.
Rubio’s Sunday remarks and a White House–published article under his byline placed the operation within a broader hemispheric strategy. He cited concerns about Iranian and Hezbollah activities in Venezuela and said Washington would act to prevent hostile actors from establishing footholds in the Western Hemisphere. Rubio stated that the administration intends to keep pressing Venezuela through oil-related sanctions and interdictions “until changes occur,” while insisting in some public comments that the United States does not intend to govern Venezuela itself—positioning economic and legal pressure, rather than long‑term occupation, as the main tools. That message stands in some tension with Trump’s separate public claim that the U.S. will “run” Venezuela during a transition.
Oil and energy implications
Trump linked the Maduro operation directly to Venezuela’s oil sector, saying the United States would bring in “very large U.S. oil companies” to refurbish the country’s “badly broken” oil infrastructure and “start making money for the country,” according to Reuters. He asserted that U.S. control of Venezuelan oil reserves would reimburse the costs of U.S. actions, echoing rhetoric used before past U.S. interventions elsewhere.
Context from NPR’s analysis and industry data underscores both the scale of the prize and the obstacles. Venezuela holds the world’s largest proven oil reserves—about 303 billion barrels—but output has fallen from more than 3 million barrels per day several decades ago to roughly 1 million barrels per day today, or about 1% of global supply. Its heavy, sour crude requires specialized refining and is considered among the most carbon‑intensive oils to produce. Much of its current output goes to China; in the past, a significant share fed U.S. Gulf Coast refineries.
NPR noted that U.S. majors ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips exited Venezuela after then‑President Hugo Chávez forced contract changes in the mid‑2000s and later won international arbitration awards totaling more than $10 billion, most of which remain unpaid. Chevron stayed in the country and now produces roughly a quarter of Venezuela’s oil under U.S. sanctions waivers. Analysts cited by NPR pointed to low global oil prices (below $60 a barrel), long‑term uncertainty over oil demand amid climate commitments, Venezuela’s prior expropriations, and unresolved political risk as major headwinds for any rapid influx of new U.S. investment.
Experts also contrasted Venezuela with neighboring Guyana, which has lighter crude, lower taxes, and no state oil company, making it one of the most attractive new oil provinces globally and a key focus of ExxonMobil and other firms. Against that backdrop, energy analysts told NPR it is unclear how many U.S. companies will respond to Trump’s call to “go in” to Venezuela unless there is a durable legal framework and clearer security conditions.
U.S. military messaging and the “Arsenal of Freedom” tour
The Department of War announced an “Arsenal of Freedom” tour by Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, with an initial stop in Newport News, Virginia, to visit shipbuilding yards and a local recruiting station. The Pentagon release linked the tour to showcasing the nation’s defense industrial base and rallying public support for the armed forces at a moment when U.S. naval and air assets are heavily engaged in and around Venezuela.
Hegseth appeared at Trump’s Mar‑a‑Lago press conference alongside Rubio, reinforcing the coordinated public messaging by the White House, State Department and Pentagon. In tandem with Gen. Caine’s detailed description of Operation Absolute Resolve, the tour announcement signals an effort to connect high‑profile overseas operations with domestic production, shipbuilding and recruitment, emphasizing the scale of the U.S. military posture in the Western Hemisphere.
U.S. legal development: California open‑carry law struck down
A major Second Amendment ruling affecting millions of Californians drew attention nationwide. On January 3, a three‑judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held 2‑1 that California’s restriction on openly carrying firearms in public is unconstitutional in more populous counties, a decision that was widely reported on January 4. The challenged law allowed open carry of handguns only in counties with fewer than 200,000 residents, effectively banning open carry in urban and suburban areas where about 95% of Californians live.
The majority found that this framework violated the Second Amendment under the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 Bruen decision, which requires modern gun regulations to be consistent with the nation’s “historical tradition of firearm regulation,” according to CBS/AP reporting. The dissenting judge argued that the state could bar open carry in denser areas because concealed‑carry licenses remain available statewide, and therefore residents still have avenues to bear arms in public.
The case was brought by Mark Baird of Siskiyou County, who sought to restore what he described as the historical practice of open carry. Gun‑rights advocates welcomed the decision and expect the state to seek review by the full 9th Circuit. Governor Gavin Newsom’s office criticized the ruling as undermining California’s “commonsense” gun laws and warned it could replace recently expelled “military troops with weapons of war” in city streets with “gunslingers,” while Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office said it is reviewing the opinion and “considering all options” to defend the state’s regulatory regime.