WASHINGTON — The United States’ sudden military move into Venezuela, followed by the capture of Nicolás Maduro and President Donald J. Trump’s declaration that he intends to “run” the country and seize its oil resources, has set off a cascade of political, diplomatic, and social aftershocks reaching far beyond Caracas. What was initially framed by the administration as a decisive operation has rapidly evolved into a multifront crisis marked by internal contradictions, global criticism, and swelling domestic unrest.

Maduro, who appeared unexpectedly calm and even cheerful during his transfer to a federal prison facility in New York — offering a casual thumbs-up and wishing bystanders a happy New Year — has become an unlikely symbol of the ambiguity now surrounding the operation. His demeanor contrasted sharply with the administration’s narrative portraying him as a destabilizing force who posed an immediate threat to regional security.

Inside Venezuela, Trump’s claim that he intends to oversee the nation for an “indefinite period of time,” citing the need to secure oil fields, has been met with near-unified opposition from political figures across the country’s fractured spectrum. Delcy Rodríguez, the former vice president now functioning as interim president in the wake of the administration’s intervention, rejected the legitimacy of any U.S.-imposed authority. In public remarks echoed across state-aligned media, she insisted that “there is only one leader of Venezuela, and that is Nicolás Maduro.”

Governors in regions historically loyal to Maduro have displayed no willingness to recognize U.S. control or cede resource management, underscoring the limited political traction of Washington’s strategy inside Venezuela’s borders.

The administration further deepened the political rift by publicly dismissing María Corina Machado — widely regarded as the country’s main democratic opposition figure and a Nobel Peace Prize recipient — as unfit to lead. The decision jarred foreign governments, particularly in Europe and Canada, which had long viewed Machado as the most credible voice for a peaceful transition. Trump instead asserted that Venezuelans “do not respect” her and maintained that only U.S. oversight could ensure security and economic stability.

International reactions have been swift. French President Emmanuel Macron voiced support for Machado and called for the protection of political prisoners still held under Maduro’s regime. Other governments — including those in Argentina, Ecuador, Panama, and Paraguay — have communicated privately with Venezuelan opposition groups and publicly emphasized the need to restore democratic authority rather than install external control.

The administration’s posture has grown more complicated as the president has issued a flurry of statements on his social media platform. Over the span of a single night, Trump posted more than 100 messages, many advancing claims unrelated to Venezuela. He asserted that the Central Intelligence Agency “overthrew the 2020 election,” reiterated unsubstantiated allegations regarding Dominion voting systems, and accused Minnesota Governor Tim Walz of involvement in the assassination of former state House Speaker Melissa Hortman — charges for which no evidence has been presented.

Simultaneously, the president threatened military action against Nigeria, accusing its government of persecuting Christians. Intelligence assessments and regional experts counter that violence in Nigeria is driven primarily by tribal and regional factors rather than state-led religious persecution, and that extremist violence disproportionately affects Muslim communities. Nigeria’s substantial oil and lithium reserves — and its existing mineral agreements with China — have fueled speculation about the broader geopolitical motivations behind the administration’s sudden focus on the country.

Taken together, the statements have intensified concerns among lawmakers and analysts who see a pattern of erratic decision-making at a moment of heightened international tension. Representative Eric Swalwell of California argued that Trump’s promise to “run” Venezuela reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of governance. “He couldn’t run a casino,” he said in an interview. “Now he thinks he can run a nation of 28 million people?”

Protests erupted across major American cities including New York and Chicago, where crowds denounced the operation as a violation of international law and a reckless assertion of executive military power. New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani said he called the president directly to register his opposition, citing both legal concerns and the potential for destabilization across the region.

The turmoil coincides with growing scrutiny over the Department of Justice’s delayed release of materials connected to the Epstein Transparency Act, including a required report on redactions and document searches related to the Epstein files. Critics have suggested that the timing of the operation — and the administration’s rapid escalation of foreign confrontations — may serve as a distraction from the missed deadlines. Trump’s supporters, however, argue that the timing reflects necessary national security decisions and deny any connection to the Epstein disclosures.

As new polling indicates that a majority of Americans oppose the occupation of Venezuela, political divisions have sharpened. Only 16 percent of Democrats and 26 percent of independents support the operation, while 60 percent of Republicans approve — a discrepancy that underscores the growing ideological gulf around foreign intervention, executive authority, and U.S. engagement in the Western Hemisphere.

The broader implications of Trump’s so-called “Donroe Doctrine” — a term he used to describe his vision of U.S. dominance across the Western Hemisphere — remain uncertain. But the rapid destabilization following the Venezuela operation, combined with new threats directed toward Nigeria, Mexico, Colombia, and Cuba, has fueled concerns among diplomats that global alignments are entering a more volatile phase.

Whether the administration’s approach represents a coherent long-term strategy or a moment of political volatility is still unclear. But as multiple crises converge — international, domestic, institutional, and political — the United States now faces a widening circle of instability precipitated by decisions whose consequences are only beginning to unfold.