Finally America Has Reminded the World What Real Strength Looks Like

On January 3, 2026, the United States military executed one of the most precise and audacious operations in modern history. In a single night, American forces captured Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro—a narco-terrorist who had turned an entire nation into a criminal enterprise—and brought him to face justice in New York. For Republicans who had watched American power constrained and apologized for across previous administrations, the operation was a moment of vindication.

America was back.

Senator Rick Scott of Florida spoke for millions when he described Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s early Saturday morning phone call. “When I got the phone call early, very early, Saturday morning from Marco Rubio, I was ecstatic. I was always hoping this was going to happen.” The feeling was electric. After years of watching strongmen and drug cartels operate with impunity in America’s hemisphere, after decades of diplomatic failure and empty threats, the United States had finally acted with the kind of decisive force that makes dictators think twice. House Speaker Mike Johnson captured the moral clarity of the moment—a “criminal organization masquerading as a government” had been held accountable. “Now, he has learned what accountability looks like,” Johnson declared. No more negotiations, no more pretending Maduro was a legitimate head of state, just justice delivered with overwhelming American military might.

The details revealed by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth showcased American military superiority at its finest. “Nicolás Maduro got to meet some great Americans wearing night vision goggles three nights ago,” Hegseth told sailors aboard the USS John F. Kennedy. “He didn’t know they were coming until three minutes before they arrived. In fact, his wife said, ‘I think I hear aircraft outside.’ They didn’t know.” Think about that. The most powerful military in history had been tracking Maduro since August, CIA operatives had penetrated his inner circle, American intelligence knew where he slept and what he ate and where he went, and when the moment came, 150 aircraft launched from 20 bases across the hemisphere in perfect coordination. The operation had been rehearsed for months on a full-scale replica of Maduro’s compound, every contingency planned, every movement drilled until it became muscle memory. General Dan Caine, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, explained the philosophy: “We think, we develop, we train, we rehearse, we debrief, we rehearse again and again, not to get it right, but to ensure that we cannot get it wrong.”

Weather had delayed the strike for days. Lesser commanders might have rushed it. Instead they waited for the perfect moment—Friday night the weather broke just enough, a full moon, clear enough skies for the most skilled aviators in the world to thread the needle. At 2:01 AM Saturday, Delta Force hit Maduro’s compound. The dictator, taken completely by surprise, tried to reach his steel-reinforced safe room.

He didn’t make it.

Within 150 minutes he was aboard the USS Iwo Jima, en route to face American justice. Zero American deaths. A handful of injuries. A helicopter hit but recovered. The mission: complete success. President Trump, characteristically, joked that the operation had saved American taxpayers $50 million in reward money.

Critics raised predictable objections about authorization and international law. Congressional Republicans responded with a clear-eyed understanding of both constitutional authority and strategic necessity. Senate Majority Leader John Thune explained why advance congressional notification for “really critical and hyper-sensitive missions” would be “ill-advised”—the element of surprise was essential, operational security was paramount, and the notification provided after the operation began was entirely sufficient. House Speaker Johnson laid out the constitutional framework: “we are not at war” and “we are not occupying that country.” The mission was focused, limited, and based on highly sensitive intelligence, the administration acting fully within its authority. Senator Mike Lee of Utah, known for his constitutional conservatism and skepticism of unauthorized military action, found the legal basis sound: “This action likely falls within the president’s inherent authority under Article II of the Constitution to protect U.S. personnel from an actual or imminent attack.” Representative Brian Mast of Florida, chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, put it most simply after his classified briefing—the operation was “done before breakfast,” limited in scope, surgically precise, constitutionally appropriate.

The operation combined two well-established legal principles. First, the President has authority to apprehend fugitives wanted on federal charges, even abroad. Second, the President has inherent authority to use military force to protect federal officers executing their duties. The FBI had an arrest warrant, the military protected them during its execution, constitutional authority clear as day. No more delays waiting for Congressional approval, no more bureaucratic red tape slowing American response to urgent threats, just the President identifying a threat to American security, indicting the perpetrator, and executing the arrest. That’s how government should work—decisively, efficiently, effectively.

January 3, 2026 marked exactly 36 years since American forces captured Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega on January 3, 1990. The symbolic timing resonated with Republicans who remembered that successful operation. Intelligence Committee Chairman Rick Crawford made the comparison explicit: “This is a historic day in the Western Hemisphere, 36 years after the capture of Manuel Noriega, when the U.S showed we will not allow cartels to take over countries in our shared neighborhood.” The Noriega precedent was powerful. He too had been indicted on drug trafficking charges, he too claimed immunity as a head of state, he too argued international law protected him, and courts rejected every argument. Noriega served his sentence, the law was vindicated, Panama recovered. Former Attorney General William Barr, who as Assistant Attorney General in 1989 had written the legal opinion authorizing the Noriega operation, appeared on Fox News Sunday to defend the Maduro capture using the same framework. The logic was identical, the authority was identical, the outcome would be identical. “Going after them and dismantling them inherently involves regime change,” Barr explained. “The object here is not just to get Maduro. We indicted a whole slew of his lieutenants. It’s to clean that place out of this criminal organization.”

This wasn’t imperialism. This was law enforcement at scale. When an entire government becomes a criminal cartel, removing that cartel necessarily means changing that government. The law doesn’t stop applying just because criminals seize state power.

Conservative social media exploded with celebration. Fox News and influential voices amplified themes of American strength decisively deployed, the operation demonstrating “overwhelming American military power” achieving its objectives with minimal casualties—exactly what American force should look like when properly unleashed. The framing was consistent: this was necessary enforcement against narco-terrorism that directly threatened American lives. Venezuela under Maduro had become a launching pad for drugs poisoning American communities. That regime had to end.

Trump ended it.

Conservative discourse dismissed hand-wringing about international law as the concern of people who don’t understand how power actually works. Nations either enforce their interests or watch them get trampled. The law of nations is ultimately the law of strength—ask any country that’s tried relying on international courts for protection against actual threats. Related enforcement actions received similar praise: sanctions dismantling Maduro’s financial networks, oil tanker seizures cutting off regime revenue. This was comprehensive pressure properly applied, not just one strike but systematic dismantling of a criminal enterprise that happened to control a country’s government. Critics were portrayed accurately: weak on security, naive about threats, more concerned with procedural niceties than American lives. The contrast was stark. Republicans celebrated American strength.

Democrats complained about paperwork.

At his Mar-a-Lago news conference, President Trump laid out the strategic vision driving the operation. Venezuela’s oil infrastructure had been destroyed under Maduro’s criminal mismanagement. “They were pumping almost nothing by comparison to what they could have been pumping,” Trump explained. The solution was characteristically bold: “We’re going to have our very large United States oil companies, the biggest anywhere in the world, to go in, spend billions of dollars to fix the badly broken infrastructure, the oil infrastructure, and start making money for the country.” American expertise, American capital, American management, rebuilding what socialism and corruption had destroyed, making Venezuela productive again—good for Venezuelans, good for regional stability, good for global energy markets, good for America. When asked how this served “America First,” Trump’s answer was immediate and clear: “We want to surround ourselves with good neighbors. We want to surround ourselves with stability. We want to surround ourselves with energy. We have tremendous energy in that country. It’s very important that we protect it. We need that for ourselves. We need that for the world.”

Energy security is national security. A stable, productive Venezuela serves American interests and helps American allies. A Venezuela run by narco-terrorists flooding America with drugs and destabilizing the region serves no one except criminals. Trump also noted the U.S. would reclaim “the oil, land, and other assets that they previously stole from us”—a reference to Maduro’s regime seizing American-owned properties and businesses. Compensation for theft isn’t imperialism, it’s justice, and when you have the strength to reclaim stolen assets you reclaim them. That’s how the world actually works. The message to Venezuela’s interim government was clear: cooperate with America’s stabilization efforts or face consequences. The message to other regional bad actors—particularly Colombia’s president Gustavo Petro, who had made threatening noises—was equally clear.

This is what American resolve looks like. Adjust accordingly.

Three House Republicans raised objections, and five Senate Republicans later voted to limit Trump’s authority. Representative Thomas Massie questioned the legal framework. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, in her final days in Congress after a public falling-out with Trump, called it a betrayal of “America First” and claimed the operation was really about oil. Representative Don Bacon worried about setting precedent for Russia and China. These voices initially represented no meaningful faction. Massie’s libertarian isolationism has always placed him outside mainstream Republican foreign policy, Greene’s credibility had evaporated with her bizarre conspiracy theories and her break with the president, and Bacon’s concerns, while thoughtfully expressed, missed the distinction between American strength defending legitimate interests and authoritarian aggression. Among MAGA influencers, Candace Owens and Steve Bannon expressed skepticism, viewing the operation through their particular lens of anti-establishment suspicion, but the broader MAGA movement—the actual voters and activists who delivered Trump’s victory—celebrated the operation enthusiastically.

Then came the war powers vote.

On January 8, the Senate voted 52-47 to advance a resolution requiring congressional approval for further military action in Venezuela. Five Republicans broke ranks: Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Todd Young, Josh Hawley, and Rand Paul. Collins cited Trump’s comments about “boots on the ground” and “running” Venezuela. Murkowski said Congress must “affirm our role under Article 1.” Hawley, widely seen as positioning for 2028, carefully noted he supported the initial Maduro capture while voting to limit what comes next.

Trump’s response was immediate: the five senators “should never be elected to office again.” They had voted “with Democrats in attempting to take away our Powers to fight and defend the United States of America.”

The resolution will die—either in the House or under a presidential veto it cannot override. But the cracks matter, not because they’ll stop anything, but because they reveal that even within Trump’s own party, some members recognize what precedent has been set. They’ll be punished for that recognition. The base knows who to primary.

Monday morning Nicolás Maduro appeared in federal court in Manhattan, wearing prison clothes, facing narco-terrorism charges that carry a potential life sentence. He called himself “a prisoner of war.” The judge was unmoved. Maduro and his wife both pleaded not guilty to conspiracy to import cocaine, narco-terrorism, and weapons charges. The evidence against him is overwhelming. The 2020 indictment detailed his leadership of the “Cartel of the Suns”—a network of high-ranking Venezuelan officials who turned their government into a drug trafficking operation. U.S. prosecutors have testimony, financial records, and intercepted communications documenting years of criminal activity. Courts will almost certainly reject Maduro’s inevitable claims of immunity. The U.S. has not recognized him as Venezuela’s legitimate president since 2019, after he stole elections, and without recognition as head of state there’s no immunity to claim. The Noriega precedent is directly on point.

Maduro’s lawyers face another challenge: hiring them may be impossible. Both Maduro and his wife are under U.S. sanctions, making it illegal for Americans to accept payment from them without Treasury Department licenses. Venezuela’s interim government, still composed of Maduro loyalists, is similarly sanctioned and restricted from U.S. business. The message is clear: face American justice, or find a way to pay for defense through legal channels that don’t involve sanctioned criminal proceeds.

Either way, the trial proceeds.

Within days, the pattern became clear: Venezuela’s remaining government would accommodate American demands. Vice President Delcy Rodríguez, sworn in as interim president the day after Maduro’s capture, initially denounced the “kidnapping” and called for international solidarity. Then she pivoted.

On January 9, Venezuela announced it had entered “exploratory” talks to restore diplomatic ties with the United States. State Department officials were visiting Caracas; Venezuelan delegations would soon visit Washington. The government began releasing political prisoners—first a trickle, then a flood. Former opposition candidate Enrique Marquez walked free. Spanish activist Rocío San Miguel, imprisoned since February 2024 over an alleged assassination plot, was released along with four other Spanish citizens. By January 12, the Venezuelan government claimed 116 political prisoners had been freed, though human rights groups could only confirm 41.

Trump announced he had cancelled “the previously expected second Wave of Attacks,” citing Venezuela’s cooperation. “The USA and Venezuela are working well together,” he posted, “especially as it pertains to rebuilding, in a much bigger, better, and more modern form, their oil and gas infrastructure.”

This is how it works. The strong act. The weak accommodate. Rodríguez understood immediately what survival required: cooperation with American interests, release of prisoners Washington cared about, access to oil infrastructure. She had watched her predecessor dragged from his bed and flown to a Manhattan jail cell. She chose differently.

The State Department, meanwhile, warned American citizens to leave Venezuela “immediately,” citing armed militias—the colectivos—searching vehicles for U.S. citizens at roadblocks. The irony was perfect: America had just demonstrated it could strike anywhere, extract anyone, face no meaningful consequences, and yet individual Americans in Venezuela faced danger from pro-government paramilitaries the operation had failed to dismantle.

The system remained intact. Only the figurehead had changed.

A Washington Post poll released Monday showed the operation at 40% approval versus 42% disapproval—essentially tied. But the context reveals the real story. Before the operation, polling showed Americans opposed military action in Venezuela by overwhelming margins: 63-25% in Quinnipiac, 70-30% in CBS/YouGov, massive opposition to any Venezuelan engagement. After a successful operation capturing a narco-terrorist dictator with zero American deaths, opposition collapsed to near-parity. That’s not evidence of weak support—that’s evidence of victory changing minds. More importantly, Republican support consolidated. The party moved largely as one—Trump’s base celebrated, Republican leaders praised, Republican voters approved, and the shift in overall numbers came entirely from Republican enthusiasm overwhelming pre-operation hesitancy. The Senate dissenters were statistical noise, already marked for political retribution. Americans generally support decisive military action when it’s successful and limited. The initial polling opposition reflected war-weariness and skepticism about Venezuelan engagement—legitimate concerns that evaporated when the operation proved to be exactly what Trump promised: surgical, successful, and finished by breakfast.

For the first time since World War II, the United States had removed a hostile foreign head of state through direct military action, captured him alive, and brought him to face criminal trial in American courts. Not regime change through proxies, not sanctions and diplomacy, just direct action producing immediate results. But the implications extend far beyond Venezuela.

The precedent is now established, and it’s magnificent in its clarity.

China has watched carefully. Taiwan, after all, is a breakaway province that Beijing has never recognized as legitimate. The leadership in Taipei has been indicted in Chinese courts for separatism and undermining national unity. If America can execute Operation Absolute Resolve based on indictments and national security interests, Beijing can certainly launch Operation National Reunification on identical grounds. The legal framework is now proven: indict the leadership of a territory you claim, declare them threats to your security, and execute a precision strike to apprehend them. The precedent couldn’t be clearer. China’s military has been rehearsing Taiwan invasion scenarios for decades—just as America rehearsed the Maduro compound. The People’s Liberation Army has built replica Taiwanese government facilities, they’ve trained for amphibious operations and urban warfare in Taipei, they’ve tracked Taiwanese leadership movements and infiltrated intelligence networks, and when Beijing moves with overwhelming force to reunify Taiwan they’ll be following the playbook America just validated. Zero dark thirty raid, capture the separatist leadership, transport them to face justice in Beijing courts, mission accomplished by breakfast. The world will understand: this is how strong nations enforce their interests and territorial integrity.

Russia, meanwhile, has been handed an elegant solution to the Ukraine problem. Volodymyr Zelenskyy can be indicted in Russian courts for terrorism, war crimes against Russian-speaking populations, or narcotics offenses—the specific charges matter less than the legal framework they create. Russian prosecutors have been building cases for years. A precision raid on Kyiv, executed with the same decisive action America demonstrated in Caracas, could have Zelenskyy on a plane to Moscow before dawn breaks. No more protracted war draining Russian resources, no more negotiations that go nowhere, just clean arrest of an indicted criminal threatening Russian security. If America can strike a sovereign capital, extract its president, and face no meaningful consequences beyond UN complaints, Russian special forces certainly can do the same. The Spetsnaz have been conducting operations in Ukraine for two years, they know the terrain, they’ve tracked Zelenskyy’s movements and security patterns, and when they execute their operation—protecting Russian law enforcement personnel executing a legitimate arrest warrant—they’ll cite the Venezuela precedent. The war could be over in mere weeks. Russia will simply be following America’s example: identify the criminal threatening your security, indict him, extract him, try him in your courts. Justice served, conflict resolved, regional stability restored under Russian management—just as America is stabilizing Venezuela and protecting its oil interests.

India has territorial disputes with Pakistan. Pakistan has disputes with India. Both have nuclear weapons, both have indictments ready, but now they have something better: legal precedent for precision leadership-extraction strikes. Every nation with a competent military and a functioning court system can now solve diplomatic problems through targeted operations. Indict the problematic leader on terrorism charges or corruption or drug trafficking, execute the extraction operation, bring them to justice in your courts, restore order in the disputed territory under your management. The Venezuela operation proved it works. Saudi Arabia has unfinished business with dissidents abroad. Turkey has indictments ready for opposition leaders operating from European exile. Iran has cases pending against Western-allied leaders in the Gulf. Every regional power with grievances and military capability now has a proven template. Strength plus indictment equals legitimate authority.

The only question is capability—and many nations have capability.

For too long, weaker nations have hidden behind UN resolutions and international law—the bureaucratic nonsense that’s paralyzed great powers since 1945. Those days are over. The UN Security Council condemned America’s Venezuela operation. The UN Secretary-General called it a “dangerous precedent” that violated international law. America proceeded anyway, and the operation succeeded completely. The precedent is set: UN disapproval is irrelevant, Security Council resolutions are suggestions, and the “rules-based international order” that’s constrained strong nations while protecting weak ones has been exposed as voluntary theater. Nations with overwhelming military superiority can act in their interests. Nations without such power can file complaints at the UN and watch nothing happen. That’s the new reality, and it’s refreshingly honest about how power actually works. The strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must—Thucydides understood this 2,400 years ago.

America has simply reminded the world of eternal truth.

Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. But who enforces that prohibition? The Security Council—where America has veto power. Other provisions require peaceful resolution of disputes. But Venezuela wasn’t a “dispute,” it was law enforcement. The Geneva Conventions protect heads of state. But America doesn’t recognize Maduro as legitimate, so those protections don’t apply. The whole system of international constraints evaporates under examination. Strong nations can interpret or ignore the rules.

Weak nations can’t.

That’s not a problem. That’s clarity. The post-World War II order pretended all nations were equal under international law. They’re not, they never were, and America can strike Venezuela, occupy its territory, seize its resources, and install new leadership while Venezuela can complain. That’s the real international order—honest, efficient, based on capability rather than pretense.

Back home, the constitutional clarity is equally liberating. Congressional approval for military operations is no longer required in practice. The Constitution assigns war powers to Congress, yes, but the President identifies threats, issues indictments through the Justice Department, and executes arrests with military support as needed. That’s not war—that’s law enforcement. The constitutional constraint dissolves on examination. No more waiting for 535 members of Congress to debate and delay while threats multiply, no more leaks compromising operational security when classified information gets shared with dozens of committee members, no more paralysis while lawyers argue about the War Powers Resolution’s applicability. The President commands, the military executes, Congress receives notification afterward.

That’s how responsive government works in a dangerous world.

The War Powers Resolution has been functionally repealed through practice. It doesn’t matter that it’s still technically law—what matters is that it won’t be enforced. Trump acted without congressional authorization, the operation succeeded completely, Republicans celebrated, and courts will defer. The precedent is clear: the President, as Commander in Chief, has inherent authority to use military force to protect national security and execute federal law. Congressional involvement is notification, not authorization. This is the new American efficiency in action. Trump can now address the Colombia problem without delay. He’s already threatened Colombian President Gustavo Petro. If Petro continues making threats against American interests, an indictment can be prepared, an operation can be planned, and the problem can be solved in a single night. Same with Cuba—the Castro regime has plenty of indictable offenses on the books. Same with Iran—their leadership has been under indictment for terrorism for decades. Same with any other regime threatening American security.

The President doesn’t need to ask Congress for permission. He doesn’t need UN Security Council approval. He doesn’t need to waste time with sanctions and diplomacy that never work anyway. He identifies the threat, Justice Department indicts, military executes, problem solved.

That’s leadership. That’s strength. That’s American power finally unshackled from the constraints that have handicapped it for decades.

Trump’s already naming countries that might require attention. Mexico’s president, if she doesn’t cooperate on cartel enforcement. Panama, if they don’t honor the canal treaties properly. Greenland—though that’s more about strategic acquisition than arrest operations. The point is: American interests can now be enforced decisively. No bureaucratic delays, no diplomatic dancing, just identify interest, exercise power, secure outcome. Congress can defund operations if they disagree. That’s their constitutional check. But they won’t. Republicans control both chambers, they celebrated the Venezuela operation, and they’ll celebrate the next one and the one after that. Congressional power of the purse is theoretical.

Presidential command authority is practical. That’s the new constitutional reality, and it works.

Republicans celebrated because it worked and because it was right. It worked operationally: perfect execution, zero American deaths, complete success. It worked legally: established precedent, valid indictment, legitimate authority. It worked strategically: removed a narco-terrorist, destabilized criminal networks, opened the door to Venezuelan recovery under American management. And it was morally right. Maduro had turned Venezuela from South America’s richest nation into a failed state hemorrhaging refugees. He had rigged elections, imprisoned opposition leaders, and murdered protesters. He had flooded American streets with cocaine while enriching himself and his cronies. He had collaborated with Cuba, China, Russia, and Iran to undermine American interests throughout the hemisphere. Diplomatic engagement had failed for years, sanctions had been ignored, the opposition had been crushed, and Maduro showed no signs of relinquishing power voluntarily.

So Trump acted—decisively, successfully, and within his constitutional authority as Commander in Chief.

Nearly a year into his second term, President Trump had delivered on his promise to restore American strength and make other nations respect American interests. The celebration wasn’t just about Maduro’s capture. It was about what that capture represented: an America that acts when action is necessary, that backs its words with force when required, that stops apologizing for exercising power in defense of its citizens. The precedent is now universal. Any nation with sufficient military power can enforce its interests through force. Federal indictment plus military capability equals legitimate authority to remove foreign leadership, occupy territory, and seize resources. The framework applies equally to all nations with the strength to execute it. China can unify Taiwan, Russia can resolve Ukraine, India can address Pakistan, Saudi Arabia can deal with dissidents, Iran can respond to regional threats, Turkey can handle opposition, and every nation with military superiority over its neighbors and adversaries now has the validated playbook. Indict, extract, try, occupy, stabilize.

That’s the new international system, and it’s remarkably efficient.

The post-World War II international system—the UN Charter, the Geneva Conventions, the prohibition on wars of aggression, the protection of territorial sovereignty—has been demonstrated as voluntary. Strong nations can ignore these constraints, weak nations can invoke them uselessly, and the law of the jungle has been acknowledged as the real international law. And that’s honest. That’s reality. That’s the world as it actually works rather than as diplomats pretend it works. American constitutional constraints have been similarly clarified. The War Powers Resolution is dead in practice, congressional authorization is optional, judicial review is deferred, and presidential authority, once exercised successfully and backed by party unity, becomes precedent. The imperial presidency isn’t a bug—it’s a feature.

It’s how a superpower operates effectively in a dangerous world.

A handful of Republicans objected. The rest of the party—and America’s military and intelligence services—delivered overwhelming success. The world is watching and learning. American strength, properly deployed under proper leadership, achieves objectives. Criminals hiding behind claims of sovereignty can be extracted and prosecuted. Narco-terrorist regimes can be dismantled. America’s hemisphere can be secured. American companies can rebuild foreign infrastructure and profit from the resources. And other nations with sufficient power can follow America’s example for their own interests. China is watching Taiwan with new understanding, Russia is watching Ukraine with new options, India and Pakistan are watching each other with new possibilities, and every regional power with territorial ambitions and military capability is watching and learning.

The precedent applies to everyone. That’s equality—equal right to exercise power in proportion to capability.

Some will call this imperialism. They’re wrong. Imperialism is when you claim territory permanently. This is temporary stabilization, resource management, and transitional governance—until acceptable leadership emerges. America will “run” Venezuela only until new elections produce a government willing to cooperate with American interests. That’s not imperialism, that’s mentorship, that’s tough love, that’s what responsible superpowers do. The precedent is set, the celebration is justified, the constraints are lifted, and American power, unleashed with precision and purpose, works. And now every other nation knows that strength plus indictment plus capability equals legitimate authority to enforce interests through military action.

Welcome to a new era of international relations: decisive, unapologetic, effective, and honest about how power determines outcomes. The strong act, the weak complain, international law is what the powerful say it is, constitutional constraints are flexible, courts defer, Congress spectates, the President commands.

America is back. The Golden Age has begun. And the whole world gets to participate in this new clarity about how power actually works.