Recent online narratives have circulated claims suggesting that the United States carried out a military operation in Venezuela, detained President Nicolás Maduro, and is preparing similar actions against other countries in Latin America. These claims have gained traction on social media and some entertainment-oriented outlets. However, no credible evidence or confirmation from official U.S., Venezuelan, or international sources supports these assertions.
A review of statements from the U.S. government, international organizations, and major news agencies confirms that no U.S. military intervention has occurred in Caracas, Nicolás Maduro has not been arrested, and Venezuela remains under the control of its existing government.
No Verified U.S. Military Operation in Venezuela
As of early 2026, Nicolás Maduro continues to serve as Venezuela’s president, a fact confirmed by reporting from outlets such as Reuters, the Associated Press, and the BBC. There has been no announcement from the U.S. Department of Defense, the White House, or Congress indicating that U.S. forces conducted an operation to detain Venezuelan leadership.
U.S. foreign policy toward Venezuela has historically included economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure, and recognition disputes, particularly during Donald Trump’s presidency from 2017 to 2021. However, those actions did not include a direct military intervention to remove Maduro from power.
International law experts note that such an operation would represent a major military escalation and would require congressional authorization, alliance coordination, and extensive public documentation—none of which has occurred.
Clarifying Donald Trump’s Role and Statements
Donald Trump is not the current president of the United States. Since leaving office in January 2021, he has held no authority over U.S. military or foreign policy decisions.
During his presidency, Trump made frequent public statements critical of governments in Venezuela, Cuba, and elsewhere in Latin America, particularly regarding drug trafficking, migration, and regional security. These remarks were often controversial but did not translate into military action.
Claims that Trump recently ordered or endorsed new interventions should be treated with caution unless supported by official government records or statements from sitting U.S. authorities.
Colombia, Mexico, and Cuba: No Evidence of Imminent Action
Assertions that Colombia, Mexico, or Cuba are “next targets” of U.S. intervention are not supported by any official U.S. policy documents or statements.
Colombia
Colombia remains one of the United States’ closest strategic partners in Latin America. The two countries cooperate extensively on trade, counter-narcotics efforts, and regional security. Diplomatic disagreements between leaders have occurred in the past, but there is no indication of U.S. plans for military or coercive action against Colombia.
Mexico
The U.S. and Mexico continue to work through bilateral frameworks addressing border security, migration, and organized crime. While U.S. officials have expressed concerns about drug trafficking, these discussions have taken place within diplomatic and law-enforcement channels, not military ones.
Cuba
U.S.–Cuba relations remain governed by long-standing sanctions and diplomatic restrictions. Although political rhetoric has periodically escalated, no credible sources report preparations for military action. Analysts emphasize that any major policy shift would be publicly debated and formally announced.
International Law and Regional Stability
Under international law, unilateral military action against another sovereign state is heavily restricted. The United Nations Charter allows the use of force only in cases of self-defense or with Security Council authorization.
Latin American governments and regional organizations, including the Organization of American States (OAS), have consistently emphasized non-intervention and respect for sovereignty as core principles. Any confirmed violation would likely prompt immediate diplomatic responses and international scrutiny.
To date, no such response has been triggered because no verified intervention has occurred.
Greenland: A Historical Proposal, Not an Active Plan
Claims that the United States is actively pursuing the acquisition of Greenland through military or coercive means are also misleading.
In 2019, during his presidency, Donald Trump publicly expressed interest in purchasing Greenland, an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark. The proposal was formally rejected by Denmark and Greenland’s government, and no negotiations followed.
Since then, U.S. policy toward Greenland has focused on security cooperation, Arctic research, and diplomatic engagement, particularly through NATO. Both Denmark and the United States remain close allies, and there is no evidence of renewed efforts to acquire Greenland.
Conclusion
There is no factual basis for claims that the United States has detained Venezuela’s president, assumed control of the country, or is preparing military action against Colombia, Mexico, Cuba, or Greenland.
While past rhetoric from political figures—including former President Donald Trump—has included strong language about foreign governments, current U.S. policy remains grounded in diplomacy, sanctions, and multilateral engagement.