Venezuela US: Johnson Clarifies No War

Published: 06 January 2026. The English Chronicle Desk. The English Chronicle Online.

The United States is “not at war” in Venezuela, House Speaker Mike Johnson emphasized, clarifying confusion after a recent US-led raid. Johnson insisted the operation is part of a broader strategy to pressure the Venezuelan government, not to engage in armed conflict, highlighting that the US is seeking behavioral change rather than occupation. This assertion comes amid heated debate over Washington’s approach, following former President Donald Trump’s weekend directive to capture Nicolás Maduro and the administration’s statements that it would now “run” Venezuela. Analysts warn the situation could reshape regional geopolitics significantly.

The raid, which occurred after months of escalating US pressure, involved blockades of Venezuelan oil shipments and airstrikes targeting vessels. Reports indicate over 110 casualties linked to these strikes, raising international concern. Trump has argued that Delcy Rodríguez, Venezuela’s newly appointed interim leader, will cooperate with US demands, including the management of Venezuela’s extensive crude reserves. Critics, particularly Democrats, contend the president bypassed Congress, embroiling the US in conflict he previously vowed to avoid.

Following a detailed briefing with top officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and Attorney General Pam Bondi, Johnson stressed that the US military is not stationed in Venezuela. He rejected claims suggesting a law was broken by acting without prior congressional approval. Johnson maintained that the effort aims to correct the Venezuelan regime’s actions, calling it a strategy for change rather than a regime change.

The Trump administration has accused Maduro’s government of operating as a “narco-terrorist” regime, trafficking fentanyl and other drugs into the United States. While independent experts question these claims, officials also allege that Venezuela provided operational space for countries like China and Russia, as well as armed groups such as Hezbollah. Johnson emphasized that economic and political pressure, including oil export seizures, is intended to encourage governance reform and prompt fair elections.

Democratic leaders, however, expressed skepticism. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer warned that the US risked becoming entangled in a new war, criticizing the White House’s plans as vague and potentially harmful to American interests. He questioned whether similar strategies might extend to other nations, pointing to historical examples of US-led regime changes resulting in long-term consequences.

Maduro, arrested alongside his wife Cilia Flores, faces federal charges involving firearms, narcotics, and terrorism. He pled not guilty during an initial court appearance in New York City. The UN Security Council convened an emergency meeting where multiple nations condemned the US incursion as a “crime of aggression.” Congressional Democrats have signaled plans to push a war powers resolution requiring authorization for any future US military action in Venezuela, though its prospects in the Republican-majority House remain uncertain.

The briefing on Monday included only senior members of Congress and bipartisan committee leaders overseeing intelligence, foreign policy, and armed forces. Johnson confirmed that administration officials will return later in the week to update lawmakers on the broader Venezuelan strategy. Despite describing the raid as a law enforcement operation with military support, the administration excluded judiciary committees, prompting rare bipartisan criticism from Senate leaders Chuck Grassley and Dick Durbin. They underscored the committees’ jurisdiction and demanded full access to information regarding Maduro’s arrest.

Brian Mast, Republican chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, defended the administration’s approach, comparing the Maduro operation to previous swift military actions, including Trump’s 2020 strike against Iranian General Qassem Suleimani. Mast noted that such actions achieved objectives without requiring prolonged troop deployment, contrasting them with extended wars. He reiterated that the Venezuela operation is intended as a short-term intervention to enforce compliance, not a long-term occupation.

As the debate continues, experts predict ongoing tension between executive and legislative branches over the proper limits of US involvement abroad. While Johnson frames the strategy as measured and precise, opposition voices emphasize the potential risks of escalation, raising questions about international law and the precedent for future interventions. The US focus on oil leverage and economic sanctions reflects an evolving approach to geopolitical conflicts, blending diplomacy with targeted enforcement measures.

The international response remains critical, with several countries condemning the US for unilateral actions. Analysts suggest that Washington’s next steps will likely involve negotiating with international partners to reinforce sanctions and limit external support for Maduro. Meanwhile, domestic political discourse intensifies, highlighting differing views on foreign policy, executive power, and congressional oversight.

Observers note that Maduro’s arrest marks a symbolic turning point, but sustainable change in Venezuela will require careful coordination between domestic policy, international pressure, and multilateral engagement. The ongoing discourse in Washington underscores the delicate balance between enforcing US interests and adhering to democratic norms in foreign interventions. With Johnson affirming that the US is “not at war,” attention now turns to monitoring Venezuela’s internal governance and the implications of potential oil revenue control.

Check our latest news