BLACKSBURG, Va. – Earlier this month, American strikes were carried out on Venezuela’s capital that killed civilians and resulted in the capture of the country’s sitting president, Nicolás Maduro, as well as his wife.
Now, Maduro is being held in a Brooklyn jail after pleading not guilty to drug trafficking charges.
Recommended Videos
Virginia Tech political scientists Paul Avey and Karen Hult discussed the capture, as it raises various questions about political power both in the U.S. and Venezuela.
“The operation fits the criteria of a ‘decapitation strike,’ which involves killing or capturing a leader to obtain political goals. Historically, the U.S. has faced challenges in turning successful military operations into sustainable political gains. Some research finds that imposing a new regime more frequently damages than improves relations.”
Paul C. Avey, Associate Professor of Political Science at Virginia Tech
On Jan. 4, Venezuelan Vice President Delcy Rodríguez was sworn in as the interim president in Maduro’s absence. Officials believe she is more willing to work with the U.S. than Maduro.
“President Trump’s approval of the operation appears to fit a pattern in his second term of deciding to use military force when he views it as quick and unlikely to result in escalation, such as the June 2025 strikes against Iran,”
Paul C. Avey, Associate Professor of Political Science at Virginia Tech
Karen Hult, a Political Science professor at Virginia Tech, expressed concerns about executive authority, international norms, and challenges that typically follow military intervention.
“However, the nature of the extraction is at best concerning, given international legal norms; evident administration neglect in informing ranking members of Congress, NATO allies, and others in Latin America; and U.S. military attacks outside of Caracas."
Karen Hult, Political Science professor at Virginia Tech
Despite the concerns, Hult claims actions such as this often face political repercussions rather than legal ones.
“Actual presidential practice and judicial deference to elected officials, particularly presidents, in this instance and in similar U.S. military actions suggest the key concerns involve political and policy, rather than legal arguments.”
Karen Hult, Political Science professor at Virginia Tech
Hult also expressed concern about U.S. influence and its perception worldwide.
“The implications extend beyond the U.S. — reinforcing doubts about U.S. trustworthiness in Europe, Canada, Asia, and elsewhere, with the action possibly signaling U.S. retreat to a territorial ‘spheres of influence’ foreign policy that appears uncomfortably consistent with Russian and Chinese initiatives."
Karen Hult, Political Science professor at Virginia Tech