As Venezuela enters the post-Nicolas Maduro era, former officials and regional experts warn the country may be facing not a democratic transition, but a period of deeper instability and internal conflict between possible successors that some warn could be even worse than Maduro.

Marshall Billingslea, the former assistant secretary for terrorist financing and financial crimes in the U.S. Treasury Department, said Maduro’s removal has exposed a fractured system that was never held together by a single strongman, but by competing criminal power centers now moving independently.

‘The cartel has always been a loose association, with each of the mafia bosses having their own centers of gravity,’ Billingslea said. ‘Maduro was the frontman, but he didn’t exercise total control. Now we’re seeing each of those centers spinning off on their own.’

Billingslea said the capture of Cilia Flores, Maduro’s wife, was as consequential as Maduro’s removal itself.

‘The capture of Cilia Flores is a particularly big deal because she was the brains behind the operation and the one who cleared out potential rivals,’ he said. ‘Her removal is equally significant.’

Billingslea outlined what he described as five competing power centers, four within the regime and one outside it. ‘The removal of Maduro, and particularly the removal of Cilia Flores, leaves a huge power vacuum in the cartel,’ he said. ‘We haven’t yet reached a new equilibrium here.’

In the interim, he foresees a high risk of internal power struggles, violence and further repression as rival factions maneuver to secure control in a post-Maduro Venezuela. But he notes that the Trump administration anticipates this and is executing a clear-eyed strategy to first secure U.S. core interests, followed by the gradual restoration of democracy, all without needing American ‘boots on the ground.’

Delcy Rodríguez takes over, but power remains contested

Delcy Rodríguez, Maduro’s longtime vice president, was quickly installed as interim leader. But her rise has done little to reassure Venezuelans or international observers that meaningful change is coming.

Rodríguez is deeply embedded in the Maduro system and has long played a central role in overseeing Venezuela’s internal intelligence and security apparatus. According to regional reporting, her focus since taking office has been consolidating control within those institutions rather than signaling political reform.

Former U.S. and regional officials say Delcy Rodríguez’s rise has revived long-standing questions about who truly influences her decisions as she moves to consolidate power.

Those officials point to Rodríguez’s deep ties with Cuban intelligence, which helped build and operate Venezuela’s internal security and surveillance apparatus over the past two decades. Cuban operatives played a central role in shaping how the regime monitored dissent and protected senior leadership, embedding themselves inside Venezuela’s intelligence services.

At the same time, former officials say Rodríguez appears to be testing cooperation with Washington, creating uncertainty over how much leverage the United States actually holds. Some view her limited engagement with U.S. demands as tactical, aimed at buying time while she works to secure loyalty inside the regime and neutralize rival factions.

A former Venezuelan official previously told Fox News Digital that Rodríguez ‘hates the West’ and represents continuity with the Maduro regime, not a break from it.

Cabello mobilizes loyalists

Diosdado Cabello, one of the most feared figures in the country, has emerged as a central player in the post-Maduro scramble for control.

Cabello, who wields influence over the ruling party and interior security, has been rallying armed colectivos and loyalist groups. Those groups have been active in the streets, detaining opponents and reinforcing regime authority through intimidation.

Sanctioned by the U.S. Treasury for corruption and alleged ties to drug-trafficking networks, Cabello is widely viewed as a figure capable of consolidating power through force rather than institutions.

Jorge Rodríguez holds the levers of control

Jorge Rodríguez, president of the National Assembly and brother of Delcy Rodríguez, remains one of the regime’s most important political operators.

Rodríguez has served as a key strategist for Maduro, overseeing communications, elections and internal coordination. Recent reporting indicates he continues to work closely with his sister to maintain control over intelligence and security structures, reinforcing the regime’s grip despite Maduro’s removal.

Experts say Rodríguez could play a central role in shaping any managed transition that preserves the system Maduro built.

Padrino López

Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino López, long considered the backbone of Maduro’s survival, remains a critical figure as well.

While Padrino López has not publicly positioned himself as a successor, analysts note that the armed forces are no longer unified behind a single leader. Senior generals are split across competing factions, raising the risk of internal clashes or a shift toward overt military rule if civilian authority weakens further.

Beyond the power struggle among regime elites, Venezuela faces a broader danger.

Large parts of the country are already influenced by criminal syndicates and armed groups. As centralized authority weakens, those actors could exploit the vacuum, expanding control over territory and smuggling routes.

Experts warned that an uncontrolled collapse could unleash forces more violent and less predictable than Maduro’s centralized repression, and the events unfolding now suggest that risk is growing.

Outside the regime, opposition leader María Corina Machado remains the most popular political figure among Venezuelan voters. But popularity alone may not be enough to translate into power.

Machado lacks control over security forces, intelligence agencies or armed groups. As repression intensifies and rival factions maneuver, her ability to convert public support into political authority remains uncertain.

Maduro’s fall, analysts say, did not dismantle Venezuela’s power structure. It fractured it.

With armed loyalists in the streets, rival factions competing behind the scenes, and an interim leader struggling to assert authority, Venezuela now faces a dangerous period in which the aftermath of Maduro’s rule could prove more chaotic — and potentially more brutal — than what came before, experts say. For Venezuelans, the question is no longer whether Maduro is gone, but whether anything that replaces him will be better.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said that President Donald Trump is under the ‘thrall of Lindsey Graham’ following the U.S. operation in Venezuela, according to audio of the remarks by the lawmaker that MeidasTouch’s Acyn Torabi posted on X.

Paul said that after the first presidential debate in 2016, the Trump family told him that they liked him and the ‘idea of not being involved in foreign wars.’ 

‘It was something I liked about Donald Trump,’ Paul said. ‘It was one of the things, whenever I had misgivings about something else, I would always come back and say, ‘Well, he’s the best we ever had.’ Much better than the Bush’s, who were war mad and wanted to be involved in all these crazy wars overseas… ‘We’re gonna make the world safe for democracy.’ I never liked any of that. And I thought Trump was different, and so, it disappoints me, but he’s under the… thrall of Lindsey Graham.’

Paul has described Trump’s move to unilaterally depose Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro without seeking congressional approval for the attack as ‘disdainful.’ 

Sen. Lindsey Graham, a hawkish Republican from South Carolina, has strongly supported the president’s action.

‘This is Lindsey Graham. Lindsey Graham has gotten to the president who expressed — I saw a clip — there’s like 20 clips of [Trump] saying he’s not for regime change and how regime change has always gone wrong. Somehow they’ve convinced him it’s different if it’s in our hemisphere,’ Paul said to reporters Monday, according to The Hill.

Torabi also posted audio on X in which Paul can be heard quipping, ‘There should be a law’ stipulating that Graham may only visit the White House ‘every other week’ and may only meet with ‘mid-level people, not the president. And no more golf outings.’

Graham was with Trump during a recent gaggle aboard Air Force One.

The senator also recently posted a photo on X that showed him giving a thumbs-up while smiling alongside of Trump, who was holding a cap that read, ‘MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN.’

Graham donned such a cap during an appearance on the Fox News Channel.

Trump endorsed Graham for re-election last year.

Hope Walz, daughter of Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, shared why her father decided to drop out of the 2026 gubernatorial race in a wide-ranging podcast interview on Monday.

Speaking to ‘One Hour Detours’ host John O’Sullivan just hours after her father announced that he would not seek a third term, Walz said the decision had been made over the winter holidays.

‘I think just with things rapidly changing in the past, you know, month or so, I think my dad kind of started questioning it,’ said Walz.

She explained that she didn’t want to speak for her father, but said the increasing intensity of public scrutiny, particularly on social media and toward her family, prompted him to reassess his campaign.

‘When things started getting really intense for me, like on my social media, and then people even saying things like to Gus and stuff, I think that’s when he was really like, OK, like I need to evaluate what’s best for the state, and then I need evaluate what’s best for my family. And then I think it was just kind of a natural, you know, the past couple weeks have been really intense, kind of a natural conclusion,’ said Walz.

Gov. Walz’s decision to drop out of the gubernatorial race came amid renewed scrutiny over childcare funding following fraud allegations raised in a viral video by independent journalist Nick Shirley and the large-scale federal Feeding Our Future case.

FBI Director Kash Patel said in December that the Feeding Our Future investigation uncovered a $250 million scheme that siphoned federal food aid intended for children during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The case has already resulted in 78 indictments and 57 convictions, with prosecutors also charging defendants in a separate alleged plot to bribe a juror with $120,000 in cash, Patel said, adding that the investigation remains ongoing.

Walz has come under pressure from President Donald Trump and Republican lawmakers over the Feeding Our Future fraud case, one of the largest pandemic-era fraud schemes in the nation, and broader allegations that state agencies failed to adequately oversee Minnesota-administered social service programs.

He said in a press release announcing the end of his re-election campaign that his decision reflected a desire to prioritize governing and the challenges facing Minnesota.

‘I know this news may come as a surprise. But I’m passing on the race with zero sadness and zero regret. After all, I didn’t run for this job so I could have this job. I ran for this job so I could do this job,’ Walz explained. ‘Minnesota faces an enormous challenge this year. And I refuse to spend even one minute of 2026 doing anything other than rising to meet the moment. Minnesota has to come first – always.’

His daughter added that part of her father’s decision to step away was to get the ‘target’ off Minnesota.

‘I think he believes if he’s not in the race, there’s nothing, they [Republicans] have nothing else because he has that, you know, national profile,’ she said. ‘Trump just hates him for some reason. I think it’s because he’s everything Trump will never be.’

President Donald Trump is set to huddle with House Republicans on Tuesday morning, days after the U.S. government executed strikes in Venezuela and captured the country’s leader Nicolás Maduro. 

Trump will address GOP lawmakers at the newly renamed Donald J. Trump and John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts, multiple sources told Fox News Digital. 

A White House schedule released late on Monday said Trump will speak around 10 a.m., and that his remarks will be streamed live.

House Republicans will be at the Trump Kennedy Center for an all-day policy forum Tuesday aimed at discussing their agenda for 2026, according to an email obtained by Fox News Digital.

It comes the day House lawmakers return from a two-week recess for the end-of-year holiday period.

Part of the day’s agenda was meant to include remarks by Trump to rally Republicans around their legislative priorities, but three sources told Fox News Digital they anticipate Venezuela will be a focus of the day as well.

‘My guess is he does 30 minutes on Venezuela and five on policy,’ one House GOP source told Fox News Digital.

Another source told Fox News Digital, ‘I would expect him to give a pretty typical rally-type speech … but who knows.’

That source expressed frustration that Republicans were waiting ‘until we get back to work to strategize.’

Meanwhile, Rep. Mike Haridopolos, R-Fla., also said he expected Trump’s remarks to focus heavily on Venezuela.

‘I think the president is going to walk through not only the justification he had for it, which is the court of law in the United States, but also the fact that, how legitimate is a country if the… Canadians, the [European Union], and the United States, no one recognizes this guy? The only people who recognize him are our enemies,’ the Florida Republican said.

Rep. Wesley Hunt, R-Texas, who is challenging Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, for his Senate seat, said he anticipated Trump to discuss November’s elections as well.

Asked what he thought he’d hear from the president, Hunt told Fox News Digital he could see Trump discussing ‘the successes of the administration, how important it’s been, what happened in Caracas a couple of days ago…codifying his agenda, and winning the midterms.’

‘I think we’re going to hear a lot of that,’ Hunt said.

President Donald Trump’s announcement that the United States will temporarily ‘run’ Venezuela following the capture of Nicolás Maduro may prove to be a defining moment for the Western Hemisphere — either a disciplined effort to restore regional stability or the opening chapter of an avoidable, open-ended entanglement.

At his Mar-a-Lago press conference on Saturday, the president stated plainly, ‘We will run the country until such time as we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition.’ He added that members of his national security team standing behind him would oversee the effort and did not rule out ‘boots on the ground.’ Hours later, speaking aboard Air Force One, he sharpened the message further: ‘We’re going to run it, fix it.’

The strategic logic is easy to understand. Venezuela sits atop the world’s largest proven oil reserves and has become a hub for narcotics trafficking, corruption and malign outside influence. The administration’s December 2025 National Security Strategy explicitly embraces what it calls a ‘Trump Corollary’ to the Monroe Doctrine — pledging to deny non-hemispheric competitors such as China, Russia and Iran control over strategically vital assets in the Americas. In that framework, Venezuela is not merely a humanitarian tragedy; it is a test case.

But this is precisely where experience should sober ambition.

The first problem: Who is actually in charge?

A central contradiction now confronts Washington. How does the United States ‘run’ Venezuela when its constitutionally designated vice president, Delcy Rodríguez, has already been sworn in domestically as interim president following Maduro’s removal?

Rodríguez’s claim to authority — backed by Venezuela’s Supreme Tribunal of Justice and regime-loyal institutions — is rejected by Washington as illegitimate. Yet in practical terms, ministries, security forces and regional authorities inside Venezuela remain staffed by officials loyal to the old system. That means the United States is not governing Venezuela in name, law or day-to-day administration — even as presidential rhetoric suggests otherwise.

This disconnect between declared authority and actual control is where post-conflict operations often fail.

Lessons written in blood: Iraq and the cost of improvisation

I learned that lesson firsthand. In 2002 and 2003, I served as a member of then–Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s Military Analyst Group. We were given extensive access — briefings, travel and candid discussions with officials planning both the Iraq invasion and what would follow.

In early 2003, several of us met with retired officers outlining postwar governance plans. We asked basic but essential questions: Who would secure ministries? How would local governance function? How would electricity, water and fuel distribution be restored? The answers were often vague, more aspirational than operational.

After the invasion, I visited Baghdad and met with Coalition Provisional Authority officials under Ambassador Paul Bremer. Again, the gaps were obvious. We had removed a regime but had not built the machinery needed to prevent the vacuum that follows. 

One decision still echoes: the CPA’s order dissolving Iraq’s security institutions, including the Ministry of Defense. RAND’s official history records that the order was issued with little objection at senior levels, even as misunderstandings were masked by apparent consensus. The result was predictable — security collapsed, insurgency surged and the U.S. presence expanded far beyond its original scope.

Venezuela now risks a similar mistake. Capturing Maduro may prove to be the easy part. Governing what comes next is the hard part — and the part America has too often improvised.

Panama is the wrong analogy

Some have compared Venezuela today to Panama in 1989, when U.S. forces captured Manuel Noriega and quickly installed Guillermo Endara as president. The comparison is tempting — and deeply misleading.

Panama was small, U.S. forces were already present, and a recognized successor government was ready to assume power. Venezuela, by contrast, has 30 million people, no broadly accepted transitional authority and entrenched military-criminal networks embedded throughout the state. What worked in Panama cannot simply be scaled up to Caracas.

‘Not day-to-day governance’— what that really means

Secretary of State Marco Rubio has since clarified that the United States does not intend to govern Venezuela ‘day-to-day.’ That clarification matters — but it raises its own questions. If Washington is not running ministries, courts, budgets or police forces, what does that leadership look like?

In real terms, it appears the administration is signaling a model of indirect control rather than occupation. The primary lever is economic, especially oil.

Venezuela’s political and military elites survive on access to oil revenues. Whoever controls export permissions, sanctions relief, insurance access and dollar-denominated transactions controls the real center of gravity. Conditioning access to those revenues — while freezing assets abroad and coordinating sanctions enforcement with allies — offers Washington leverage over the top of the system without governing the country outright.

That approach amounts to influence without occupation: pressure without American administrators running Caracas.

A narco-state is not a one-man show

There is also a dangerous illusion at work — that removing Maduro dismantles the regime.

Maduro sat at the apex of a narco-state and was indicted in U.S. courts on charges of drug trafficking and narco-terrorism. But he did not act alone. His power rested on a network of generals, intelligence chiefs, judges, energy officials and cartel intermediaries who enriched themselves under the existing system. Many of those figures remain in place today.

They are unlikely to surrender quietly. Some will seek accommodation; others will resist through bureaucratic sabotage, violence or the manipulation of public fear. Without a credible transitional framework anchored in Venezuelan civil society and supported by international legitimacy, the system Maduro built may survive him.

The questions that must be answered — now

If the administration wants to avoid repeating Iraq, it must answer several questions publicly and soon.

What is the legal basis — and limit — of U.S. authority? Who provides immediate security, and under what rules? Which Venezuelan partners will be empowered to lead? What economic plan serves Venezuelans first, not just foreign interests? And how does this mission end?

Once the United States assumes responsibility for ‘running’ another country, it inherits responsibility not only for success but for failure.

The Trump administration can still make Venezuela a model rather than a warning. But doing so will require discipline: clearly defined objectives, credible Venezuelan partners, continuity in security forces, transparent reconstruction tied to humanitarian relief and an exit strategy that is real — not rhetorical.

Venezuela is not Iraq. But history has a way of repeating itself when preparation yields to improvisation.

Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado has vowed to return to Venezuela ‘as soon as possible’ following America’s capture of dictator Nicolás Maduro, warning that the current regime is escalating an internal crackdown on dissent and journalists.

Speaking to ‘Hannity’ on Monday, Machado said the moment is now right for her return after spending more than a year in hiding. She secretly escaped Venezuela last month and traveled to Norway to receive the Nobel Peace Prize, which she dedicated to President Donald Trump.

‘Well, first of all, I’m planning to go back to Venezuela as soon as possible,’ Machado said. 

‘As I’ve always said, Sean, every day I make a decision where I am more useful for our cause. That’s why I stayed in hiding for over 16 months, and that’s why I decided to go out, because I believed that at this moment I’m more useful to our cause, being able to speak out from where I’m at right now. But I’m going to go as soon possible back home.’

Machado said developments in the past 24 hours have been deeply concerning, pointing to what she described as a sweeping executive order signed by Maduro on the same day he was captured and flown out of the country by U.S. forces.

‘What we’re seeing right now in the last 24 hours is really alarming,’ she said.

Machado said the order mandates the persecution of Venezuelans who support Trump’s actions and claimed at least 14 journalists have been detained. A state of emergency decree issued Saturday, but published Monday, orders police to ‘immediately begin the national search and capture of everyone involved in the promotion or support for the armed attack by the United States,’ the text of the decree reads, according to Reuters.

She said the situation must be closely monitored by the United States and the Venezuelan people, arguing that the transition away from Maduro must continue.

‘So this is very alarming. This is something that has to be followed carefully, I’m sure, by the United States government and by the Venezuelan people,’ she said. ‘And certainly we believe that this transition should move forward.’

Machado also sharply criticized Venezuelan Vice President Delcy Rodríguez, calling her unfit to lead any transitional authority. Rodríguez, who has been vice president under Maduro since 2018, was sworn in as interim president on Monday.

‘Delcy Rodriguez, as you know, is one of the main architects of torture, persecution, corruption, narco trafficking,’ Machado said. ‘She’s the main ally and liaison with Russia, China, Iran, certainly not an individual that could be trusted by international investors. And she’s really rejected, repudiated by the Venezuelan people.’

Machado’s comments came just two days after the Trump administration announced that U.S. forces had captured the dictator and his wife, Cilia Flores, after successful ‘large-scale’ military strikes targeting the Venezuelan government. The dictator and his wife are now being held in New York while they await trial on narco-terrorism charges.

Fox News’ Maria Lencki and Louis Casiano contributed to this report.

Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro’s wife arrived to court in New York City wearing bandages on her face and complaining of bruises on her ribs, according to her lawyer.

Her attorney, veteran prosecutor Mark Donnelly, told the court that Cilia Flores suffered ‘significant injuries’ when U.S. forces raided the couple’s compound in Caracas on Saturday. Donnelly requested that Flores receive a full X-ray to determine whether she fractured a rib in the incident.

Flores was already wearing two bandages on her face, one on her forehead and another above her eye.

Both she and her husband pleaded not guilty to narco-terrorism and other charges in their first appearance on Monday.

Maduro faces four charges: narco-terrorism conspiracy, cocaine importation conspiracy, possession of machine guns and destructive devices and conspiracy to possess machine guns and destructive devices.

Flores faces three charges, including cocaine importation conspiracy, possession of machine guns and destructive devices, and conspiracy to possess machine guns and destructive devices.

Donnelly filed a motion to serve as counsel for Flores earlier Monday. He previously served 12 years at the Department of Justice, including as senior advisor to the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Texas.

‘Mark has extensive experience investigating white collar cases, having run the Southern District’s fraud division for over two years. His white collar practice included FCPA investigations, Healthcare Fraud, joint SEC matters, large scale investor fraud, and cyber security matters,’ Donnelly’s biography on the website for the Parker Sanchez & Donnelly law firm reads.

The Texas House of Representatives also enlisted Donnelly to assist in the 2023 investigation and impeachment trial for Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. Paxton’s impeachment case made it to the Texas Senate, but he was ultimately acquitted on all charges.

Maduro and Flores, who have been married for 12 years, were first introduced while working closely with Maduro’s predecessor, Hugo Chávez. At the time, Maduro described her as having a ‘fiery character,’ according to Reuters.

The pair did not marry until nearly two decades after first meeting, after Maduro was elected president in 2013.

Fox News’ Emma Bussey contributed to this report.

Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen on Monday warned about the implications of President Donald Trump’s threats to annex Greenland, saying it could be the end of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

Frederiksen told Danish broadcaster TV2 in an interview that Trump’s threats about Greenland should be taken seriously.

‘But I also want to make it clear that if the U.S. chooses to attack another NATO country militarily, then everything stops. Including our NATO and thus the security that has been provided since the end of the Second World War,’ she said, according to the outlet.

President Donald Trump told reporters on Air Force One over the weekend that the U.S. needs Greenland, a Danish territory, for ‘national security.’

European and Nordic leaders pushed back against the comments, with Finnish President Alexander Stubb, Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre and Denmark’s Ambassador to the United States Jesper Møller Sørensen underscoring their support for Denmark’s sovereignty over Greenland and stressing that its future must be determined by Greenland and Denmark alone.

White House deputy chief of staff for policy Stephen Miller doubled down on Trump’s remarks, telling CNN in an interview on Monday that Greenland ‘should be part of the United States.’

CNN anchor Jake Tapper pressed Miller about whether the Trump administration could rule out military action against the Arctic island.

‘Greenland has a population of 30,000 people,’ Miller said. ‘The real question is by what right does Denmark assert control over Greenland. What is the basis of their territorial claim? What is their basis of having Greenland as a colony of Denmark?’

‘The United States is the power of NATO. For the United States to secure the Arctic region, to protect and defend NATO and NATO interests, obviously Greenland should be part of the United States,’ he added.

Greenlandic Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen said in a Monday statement posted on Facebook that his country is ‘not an object of superpower rhetoric.’

‘We are a people. A land. And democracy. This has to be respected. Especially by close and loyal friends,’ Nielsen wrote in part.

‘Threats, pressure and talk of annexation do not belong anywhere between friends,’ he added. ‘That’s not how you talk to a people who have repeatedly shown responsibility, stability and loyalty. This is enough.’

A deepening political realignment across Latin America came into focus over the weekend at a summit of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, or CELAC, and sharpened further Monday at the United Nations Security Council, where governments publicly split over the U.S. role in the capture of Venezuelan strongman Nicolás Maduro.

At CELAC, several leftist governments attempted to push through a joint statement condemning Maduro’s detention. The effort failed after a bloc of countries consisting of Argentina, Bolivia, Paraguay, Peru, Ecuador, El Salvador, Panama, the Dominican Republic, and Trinidad and Tobago blocked consensus, preventing the regional body from issuing a unified defense of the Venezuelan leader, Merco Press agency reported.

The breakdown exposed growing fractures within what has long been a left-leaning regional forum and underscored the erosion of automatic solidarity with Caracas.

Melissa Ford Maldonado, director of the Western Hemisphere Initiative at the America First Policy Institute, said the fractures reflect a broader regional reckoning with the consequences of socialist and narco-authoritarian rule.

‘We are witnessing a regional awakening across Latin America,’ Maldonado told Fox News Digital. ‘The failure of socialism, communism and narco-authoritarian rule has become impossible to ignore.’

The shift is increasingly visible at the ballot box, where voters in several countries — last month alone in Chile and Honduras — have moved away from entrenched left-wing governments and toward right-of-center leaders campaigning on themes of security, sovereignty, border control and law and order — messages that echo aspects of President Donald Trump’s political approach in the United States.

‘The developments at CELAC this weekend reflect that reality,’ Maldonado said. ‘The fact that several governments blocked a collective defense of Nicolás Maduro shows how divided the authoritarian left has become. Venezuela has become a cautionary tale.’

That division carried over into the Security Council on Monday, where Latin American and Caribbean states took sharply different positions, with some openly backing Washington and others denouncing the U.S. action as a violation of international law.

Argentina emerged as the most forceful regional supporter of the United States, praising President Donald Trump and framing Maduro’s capture as a decisive blow against organized crime.

‘The Government of the Argentine Republic values the decision and determination demonstrated by the President of the United States of America and his government, and the recent actions taken in Venezuela that resulted in the capture of dictator Nicolás Maduro, leader of the Cartel of the Suns,’ Argentina’s representative Francisco Fabián Tropepi told the council, adding the Maduro regime ‘has not only constituted a direct threat to the citizens systematic violation of human rights in the state appropriation of the country’s resources and destruction of democratic institutions, but also to the entire region by leading and exploiting its networks of drug trafficking and organized crime.’

Paraguay echoed that framing, claiming Maduro’s continued presence ‘was a threat to the region,’ adding that ‘the removal of the leader of a terrorist organization should immediately lead to the restoration of democracy and the rule of law in Venezuela, making it possible for the will of the people, expressed at the ballot box, to become the foundation for the country’s reconstruction,’ its representative Marcelo Eliseo Scappini Ricciardi said.

Other CELAC members took the opposite view, condemning the U.S. action and warning that it set a dangerous precedent.

Brazil ‘categorically and firmly’ rejected what it called armed intervention on Venezuelan territory, describing the capture of Maduro as ‘a very serious affront to the sovereignty of Venezuela and an extremely dangerous precedent for the entire international community.’ 

Mexico denounced the operation as a violation of the U.N. Charter, arguing that external efforts to impose political change historically worsen conflicts and destabilize societies. Chile also condemned what it called unilateral military action and warned against foreign interference, while Cuba and Nicaragua delivered blistering denunciations of Washington, accusing the United States of imperial aggression and calling for Maduro’s immediate release.

The split at the U.N. mirrored the breakdown at CELAC, where governments increasingly appear unwilling to speak with one voice on Venezuela, even as they stop short of endorsing U.S. military force.

According to Maldonado, ‘Governments are increasingly forced to choose between defending failed autocracies, corruption and repression or responding to their own citizens,’ she said. ‘More governments are unwilling to carry that burden.’

Maldonado described Maduro’s capture as a break with decades of U.S. restraint in the region, ‘It shows that the United States is deadly serious about defending itself and the hemisphere, about stopping the flow of drugs, dismantling cartel-state alliances and about fighting back against the influence of China, Russia and Iran in our neighborhood.’

She argued that the regional reaction, split though it is, reflects a broader ideological shift.

‘There is a clear rightward shift underway in the region, and it is a healthy one,’ Maldonado said. ‘It reflects a growing alignment around the core principles of freedom, liberty, personal responsibility, national sovereignty and prosperity.’

While critics at the U.N. warned that U.S. action risks undermining international law, supporters argue the status quo had already collapsed under the weight of Venezuela’s humanitarian and security crisis.

‘Venezuela’s collapse has taught the region what happens when the state becomes your everything,’ Maldonado said. ‘When the state controls your job, your housing, your healthcare, your education, your courts and your information, freedom becomes conditional.’

A select group of lawmakers received their first closed-door briefing on Capitol Hill on Monday following the Trump administration’s weekend military strikes in Venezuela and the capture of President Nicolás Maduro — a meeting that quickly divided along political lines.

The roughly two-hour meeting deep in the bowels of Congress featured top administration officials providing a classified briefing to congressional leaders and the chairs and ranking members of the armed services, intelligence and foreign relations committees. 

None of the Trump officials, who included Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Attorney General Pam Bondi, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair Gen. Dan ‘Raizin’ Caine and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, spoke after the meeting. 

But a handful of lawmakers did, and questions still lingered about what exactly would come next for U.S. involvement in the country, if other similar operations would be carried out across the globe, and who exactly was running Venezuela.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said that there was no expectation that the U.S. would be on the ground, nor would there be any ‘direct involvement in any other way beyond just coercing the interim government to to get that going.’

‘We are not at war,’ Johnson said. ‘We do not have U.S. armed forces in Venezuela, and we are not occupying that country.’

‘This is not a regime change,’ he continued. ‘This is a demand for change of behavior by a regime. The interim government is stood up now, and we are hopeful that they will be able to correct their action.’

House Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Brian Mast, R-Fl., echoed Johnson, and reiterated that the operation was a ‘specific law enforcement function that took place that took a significant obstacle out of the way for the Venezuelan people to go chart a new future.’ 

He didn’t expect further military action from the Trump administration in the country, either. 

‘These things are done before breakfast,’ Mast said. ‘They don’t do protracted war operations.’

However, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., countered that the lengthy meeting ‘posed far more questions than it ever answered.’ 

One growing point of contention among lawmakers is just how directly involved the U.S. will be, given that Trump said that the U.S. would govern the country until a proper transition of power happened. 

Schumer said that the plan presented behind closed doors or the U.S. running Venezuela ‘is vague, based on wishful thinking and unsatisfying.’

‘I did not receive any assurances that we would not try to do the same thing in other countries,’ he said. ‘And in conclusion, when the United States engages in this kind of regime change and so called nation building, it always ends up hurting the United States. I left the briefing feeling that it would again.’

Schumer, along with Sens. Tim Kaine, D-Va., Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and Rand Paul, R-Ky., plan to force a vote later in the week on a war powers resolution that, if passed, would require the administration to get congressional approval before taking further military action in Venezuela. 

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said that he was satisfied with the briefing and that ‘it was a very comprehensive discussion.’

Lawmakers will get another bite at the apple later in the week when Trump officials again return to Congress to provide a full briefing to lawmakers on Operation Absolute Resolve. 

Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., and the top-ranking Democrat on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, lauded the military for a ‘brilliant execution’ of the mission, and noted that the region was better off without Maduro.

But, like Schumer, he was still searching for the next step. 

‘The question becomes, as policymakers, what happens the day after,’ Warner said.