The Politics Shed- A Free Text Book for all students of Politics.

Case study: Trump v Venezuela

Part 1

December 2025: Donald Trump suggested a “military option” for Venezuela to dislodge its president, Nicolás Maduro and as of December 2025, he is reported to have discussed the prospect of an invasion behind closed doors. T he US appeared at first to pursue a “maximum pressure” strategy of sanctions and threats. Trump’s amassed its largest military presence in the Caribbean since the 1989 invasion of Panama. It has carried out more than 20 illegal strikes on alleged drug boats. Trump reportedly delivered an ultimatum telling the Venezuelan leader that he could have safe passage from his country if he left immediately. There was already a $50m bounty on his head.

In November 2025, the U.S. Senate voted against a War Powers Resolution that would have required President Trump to seek congressional authorization for military action against Venezuela. The resolution failed by a narrow margin, largely along party lines.

Details of the Vote

Senate Vote: The resolution was voted down in the Senate with a 49-51 vote.
Party Lines: Most Republicans voted against the measure, granting the President continued leeway in his military campaign in the Caribbean, while most Democrats supported the resolution.
Bipartisan Effort: A small group of bipartisan lawmakers, including Senators Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), and Rand Paul (R-Ky.), introduced the measure, but only two Republicans ultimately voted in favor of it.

Part 2

The United States carried out “a large-scale strike against Venezuela” in which Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, were captured, Trump said. Nearly 200 Special Operations forces took part in the raid, according to Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth.

U.S. forces encountered significant resistance, Trump said. At least 80 people were killed, including military personnel and civilians, according to a senior Venezuelan official

How the future for Venezuela will unfold was far from clear. President Trump has said the United States will “run” the country for the foreseeable future and reclaim American oil interests there. Trump said on social media on Tuesday that Venezuela would begin handing over some of its oil supplies to the U.S. If this plan comes to pass, Venezuela could send somewhere between $1.8 billion and $3 billion worth of its oil.

The country’s new leader, Delcy Rodríguez, has raised the prospect of dialogue with the United States. But as she was sworn in as interim President, she decried what she called the “illegitimate military aggression” of the United States and said that President Maduro was still president of Venezuela.

War Crimes

The White House confirmed that a top US Navy commander ordered a second round of strikes on an alleged Venezuelan drug boat in September 2025, despite almost completely destroying it in the first attack. A double-tap strike essentially means carrying out two strikes on the same target – often wounding or killing medics and civilians who are coming to the aid of people harmed in the first attack. In this case the second attack killed two men who were surivors of the first attack and were helpless. Its campaign in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific has, so far, killed more than 80 people while targeting at least 21 boats it claims were trafficking drugs. It has not provided any evidence to support this.The first strike on September 2 destroyed one vessel and killed nine people. Two survivors were left clinging to debris in the water.But The Washington Post has reported that mission commander Admiral Frank Bradley then authorised a second strike, killing the two survivors.The Pentagon has advanced no evidence to support its claim that they might have been trying to radio their compatriots. Admiral Frank “Mitch” Bradley, who was overseeing the operation, acknowledged that the two men were in no position to make a distress call.

In an armed conflict, it is a war crime to attack people who have been shipwrecked at sea, as some in Congress have alleged happened. They are considered hors de combat – outside the fight – and hence no longer combatants who can be shot on sight. They are akin to wounded or surrendering combatants. Opposing forces have a duty to receive and care for them, not kill them.

The Republican chair of the House Armed Services Committee said he doesn’t see the need to further investigate a controversial military strike that killed survivors of an attack on an alleged drug-running vessel in September.

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse