US Military Attacks in Venezuela
January 29, 2026
On January 3rd of this year, what many of us feared and others believed to be pure fiction became a reality in Venezuela. In the early morning hours of January 3rd, at approximately 2:30 a.m., the city of Caracas was gripped by panic. We heard explosions and the drone of airplanes and helicopters. The explosions occurred in specific areas, but it was impossible to understand exactly what was happening. As a result of the explosions, those areas were left without electricity, internet service, and telephone signal.
In the following hours, social media quickly reported that President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, had been kidnapped by the Donald Trump administration, while there was a complete absence of official statements from the national government. By dawn, only the devastating consequences of a military attack remained; anguish and uncertainty were the feelings shared by many Venezuelans within the country. During the early morning hours, the streets were empty, traffic almost nonexistent. Despite the panic, anxiety, and uncertainty, I had to go out. A relative was hospitalized at the University Hospital of Caracas, without electricity, water, cell service, and with very little food. It was already 7:00 a.m. as I drove across the city from my house to the hospital.
No public transportation, gas stations, or supermarkets were operating. Nothing was open, except for the small service windows of some pharmacies, where people crowded together, anxious to buy medicine or groceries. Upon arriving at the hospital, doctors, nurses, and some patients with their companions were distressed and bewildered. Perhaps the media portrayed Venezuelans as celebrating, but that wasn’t the case; my country was in total uncertainty. The elderly, children, men, and women all shared the fear that this was just a taste of the destruction and suffering that could be inflicted upon us. There were no happy people, no one celebrating; there was a pervasive atmosphere of uncertainty and shock. And I know perfectly well how polarized our country is, but in those first hours after the attack, that took a back seat.
In the hospital, people shared their meals and water. Doctors continued working tirelessly, and nurses discreetly attended to patients to avoid increasing their anxiety. The small staff in the hospital cafeteria worked incredibly hard, ensuring that only a few hands could serve and feed everyone. One of the missiles hit the power plant that supplies electricity to the hospital, and the plant’s power was allocated only to the most critical areas and patients with special needs. And in the face of this utter difficulty and fear, I also witnessed solidarity, commitment, and respect. And that was more valuable than anything shared on social media. It was the true and genuine Venezuelan spirit, brimming with resilience and empathy.
In the hours following Donald Trump’s statements, I was already back home. The supermarkets were open, and there were long lines to get in. People were talking, sharing their opinions, and it was clear that many rejected military intervention and war.
In the days following the attack, the narratives unfolded as follows:
The Venezuelan Attorney General’s Office reported between 100 and 120 deaths (civilians and military personnel), in addition to 47 members of the Venezuelan National Armed Forces (FANB) and 32 Cuban military personnel killed.
In Cuba, the arrival of the remains of the soldiers killed in Venezuela prompted official acts of condemnation against Washington and public demonstrations.
The attack was described by Donald Trump as “successful,” while the UN considered it a dangerous precedent for the region, urging dialogue and respect for international law. For his part, the High Commissioner for Human Rights urged everyone to act “with restraint” and fully respect the UN Charter and international human rights law. “The protection of the Venezuelan people is paramount and must guide any measures taken in the future,” Volker Türk said in a social media post. In another post, the President of the General Assembly referred to Article 2 of the UN Charter, which stipulates that all Members of the Organization shall refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State. Annalena Baerbock recalled that respect for international law is “the foundation of the international order.” “The Charter of the United Nations is not optional: it is our guiding framework, both in times of calm and in times of crisis, such as the one Venezuela is experiencing today, which has culminated in the military action of the United States,” he stressed.
These articles emphasize that the attack was not only a military aggression, but also an attempt to impose political change from abroad. The official position is that it constitutes a violation of national sovereignty and an act of interference.
Regarding the opinions of Venezuelans, a diversity of views was evident. Some openly and vehemently reject imperialist actions, military interference, and the violence perpetrated by the United States, and support the leadership of Interim President Delcy Rodríguez. A few others justify the military attack as necessary to end the “dictatorship” and move toward prosperity; this group tends to offer a weak analysis of President Trump’s statements regarding the management of Venezuelan oil. Finally, there is another group of Venezuelans who recognize the true intentions of the U.S. government, reject military intervention, but also feel no affinity with the current Chavista leaders. Venezuela is complex and diverse, but ultimately, those of us who wish to live in peace and reject war constitute the vast majority of the country.
Fabiola Cardozo
Sociologist, specialist in International Humanitarian Law, Master’s student in Women’s Studies at the Central University of Venezuela, Venezuelan mother, collaborator in social research organizations against war and the military recruitment of young people and children.
01/25/26