For three years, the Washington foreign policy establishment has insisted that there is only one acceptable outcome in Ukraine: total victory over Russia achieved through relentless military aid, indefinite financial support and escalation readiness regardless of the risks. But strategy and morality are not always the same thing — and real leadership demands confronting reality as it exists, not as we wish it to be.

I write this not as an academic or pundit, but as someone who worked at the center of this conflict. As U.S. ambassador to the European Union during the first Trump administration, President Donald Trump tasked me with bringing Europe into alignment — truly into alignment — behind Ukraine. 

That meant ending the EU’s habitual double-game: proclaiming solidarity with Kyiv while enriching Moscow through energy purchases and dragging its feet on serious sanctions. I saw firsthand how Europe’s hesitation and transactional approach sent Moscow exactly the wrong message. It told President Vladimir Putin the West was divided, unserious and ultimately unwilling to sacrifice comfort for principle. That perception was part of his calculus.

The uncomfortable truth is that the United States is closer to strategic exhaustion than our rhetoric admits. Europe’s defense industries remain underbuilt. American stockpiles are finite. And while Russia has paid a staggering price, it has not collapsed, surrendered or reversed course. Worse, every escalation increases the probability of something unthinkable: a desperate Kremlin resorting to tactical nuclear weapons. That would not be ‘just another step’ on the escalatory ladder; it would fundamentally shatter global stability.

Against that background, the Trump administration’s instinct to seek a quasi-business resolution is not weakness. It is classic realpolitik — recognition that the job of American leadership is to maximize U.S. security, economic leverage and strategic flexibility while minimizing existential risk.

Business leaders know what Washington too often does not: the perfect deal rarely exists. The question is not whether we can achieve a morally pure resolution; it is whether we can lock in outcomes that are measurably better for American interests — and for Ukraine — than a perpetual, bleeding stalemate.

A negotiated settlement, backed by enforceable conditions and leverage, could do precisely that.

First, a settlement can provide Ukraine with a bespoke security guarantee — credible enough to deter renewed aggression but structured to avoid NATO Article 5 entanglement. This isn’t a vague promise; it is a contract with clear performance terms. The U.S. guarantee would stand as long as Russia adheres to its commitments. But if Russia violates the agreement, the snapback provisions would trigger instantly — not months later, not after diplomatic waffling — immediately unlocking full-scale U.S. and NATO support for Ukraine, including offensive weapons, advanced air defense, training and intelligence integration.

Just as important, the consequences of Russian cheating would be explicit, not theoretical.

If Moscow breaks the deal, the United States would reserve the option to openly back Ukraine in retaking every inch of territory — up to and including restoration to its pre-2014 borders. Moscow would know this going in. Deterrence works best when penalties are unmistakable.

And crucially, this would all be public. No more pretending, hedging or quiet back-channel shipments. The world — and Russia — would know that renewed aggression automatically and lawfully unleashes overwhelming Western support, with the U.S. leading confidently and unapologetically. That clarity is a deterrent in itself.

Equally important, this structure protects U.S. sovereignty in the agreement. If Ukraine violates its obligations, the American guarantee becomes void at our sole discretion. Not a bureaucratic process. Not a committee vote. The United States decides. That means Ukraine has every incentive to maintain discipline and treat the arrangement not as a blank check, but as a powerful partnership grounded in responsibility.

Second, a negotiated deal can generate tangible U.S. economic advantage. Ukraine holds minerals and rare earths essential to American industry, national security and technological supremacy. China knows this. Russia knows this. Only Washington’s old guard pretends resource control is not strategic policy. A structured agreement ensuring privileged U.S. access strengthens manufacturing, energy resilience, and economic security.

Third, a settlement can wedge open the relationship between Moscow and Beijing. Right now, the war has pushed Russia completely into China’s arms. That alignment is bad for the United States and for global balance. A disciplined settlement begins unwinding that dependency. America doesn’t need friendship with Moscow; it needs leverage over it. Realpolitik is about advantage, not affection.

Fourth, a deal can compartmentalize strategic theaters. If Russia insists on regional influence, the U.S. can demand reciprocal space in our hemisphere — particularly in Venezuela, narcotics interdiction, and energy-linked criminal networks — reducing adversarial reach in the Americas.

Critics will scream ‘Munich.’ They always do. But Adolf Hitler was leading a rising ideological empire bent on global conquest. Russia is a demographically and economically declining power seeking regional positioning. Brutal, yes — but not irrational. Mature powers negotiate with rivals when negotiations produce superior outcomes.

Others claim any deal rewards aggression. That assumes deterrence is binary — victory or failure. In reality, deterrence is layered.

A settlement that leaves Russia bloodied, sanctioned, strategically constrained and facing automatic, overwhelming Western military escalation — potentially including U.S. support for Ukraine restoring its 2013 borders — if it cheats is not a reward. It is a warning carved into treaty stone.

Meanwhile, the humanitarian and financial realities matter. Endless war means endless dead Ukrainians, shattered cities and endless U.S. taxpayer exposure with no defined victory condition. That may thrill think tanks that never fight wars, but it is not serious governance.

Most importantly, a business-style settlement introduces accountability — currently absent from Washington’s ‘as long as it takes’ mantra. Under a structured deal, compliance is measurable. Triggers are automatic. Support is not improvised — it is guaranteed. Enforcement is not theoretical — it is built in. And unlike today, America would no longer need to whisper its involvement. It would act openly, decisively and with treaty authority.

The alternative? A forever war with rising nuclear risk, continued strategic drift, and deepening alignment between Russia and China. That is not strategy. It is inertia dressed as courage.

Realpolitik does not abandon values. It protects them intelligently. A disciplined, enforceable settlement — with clear snapback provisions benefiting both the U.S. and Ukraine; explicit authority to openly arm Ukraine and potentially support full territorial restoration if Russia cheats; and a guarantee revocable at America’s sole discretion if Ukraine violates terms — is not capitulation.

It is strategic control.

In geopolitics, as in business, the strongest player is not the one who insists on endless confrontation. It is the one who knows when to fight — and when to close the deal.

To the surprise of no one, Democrats reflexively denounced Trump’s daring middle-of-the-night grab of Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro and his wife.  

If Joe Biden, who offered a $25 million reward for Maduro’s arrest, had done what Trump did, these same politicians would be organizing a ticker-tape parade.  

Their condemnation of Trump has nothing to do with the law, although they pretend that it does. Instead, it is transparently driven by their contempt for a president that they despise.

Bereft of reason, they oppose whatever Trump does even if it conforms to their previously expressed beliefs.

Almost in unison, Democrats decried Trump’s action as ‘illegal,’ ‘unjustified’ and ‘unconstitutional.’ Many insisted that he was required to seek permission from Congress.  

None of that happens to be true. 

Inherent Constitutional Authority

The president is empowered by the U.S. Constitution as commander in chief of the armed forces to direct military action to protect Americans, fortify U.S. interests and defend our national security.  

The scourge of drugs emanating from Venezuela has long been poisoning our citizens. Our government estimates that roughly 200 to 250 metric tons of cocaine is shipped out of the Latin American country annually. America, by virtue of its prosperity, is a favored destination.  

On this basis alone, the incursion into Caracas was legal, justified, and legitimate.

For years, Maduro has led the notorious Cartel de los Soles, a violent drug cartel that is designated by the U.S. as a foreign terrorist organization responsible for murders, torture and crimes against humanity so egregious that even the United Nations recognized it.

Article II, Section 2 of our Constitution vests inherent powers in the president to unilaterally order armed forces into military actions. His command authority is supreme, and he may conduct campaigns and deploy operations by his own judgment.  

Short of a formal declaration of war, a president does not need prior authorization from Congress to act. That principle is embedded in our Constitution and has been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court since the early founding of our Republic.

In more modern times, the president’s authority over armed action has only expanded. Cases involving Truman, Clinton and Obama solidified presidential power to direct military operations without congressional consent. 

Trump had every legal and constitutional right to defend the United States against the transport of deadly illicit drugs and to arrest the man most responsible, who has been federally indicted for numerous crimes. 

And no, Trump did not violate the War Powers Act as some of his critics have alleged. The resolution that was passed in 1973 stipulates a reporting requirement to Congress within 48 hours of deploying forces into hostilities. It is not a prohibition to act.

Indeed, it implicitly recognizes a president’s inherent power to use military force without specific congressional approval. Every single American president has done so since the end of World War II.  Trump is no exception.  

The ‘Take Care Clause’

The president has another authority at his disposal. The ‘Take Care Clause’ in Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution mandates that the president ‘shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.’

To put it simply, Trump is duty-bound to ensure that all federal statutes are enforced. This includes the apprehension, arrest, and prosecution of wanted fugitives who are criminally charged with U.S. crimes and must be brought to justice.

Effectuating the arrest of Maduro qualifies as enforcing all laws. Just because the accused is the de facto head of state in another country does not afford him protection or immunity from the long arm of American law. That is written nowhere. 

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio described Maduro as ‘a fugitive of American justice.’ Given his armed protection, military troops were necessary to accomplish his arrest. According to Trump, the ‘operation was done in conjunction with U.S. law enforcement.’

This was also the case in 1990 under nearly identical circumstances.    

Then-President George H. W. Bush ordered the military to capture Manuel Noriega, the corrupt dictator of Panama who was indicted on drug trafficking charges and endangering U.S. citizens. After a surprise military operation in the country’s capital, he was taken into custody and spirited back to the U.S. for trial.

Noriega’s legal team of defense attorneys vigorously challenged both his arrest and America’s legal authority to try him. Those maneuvers failed, along with his various claims of immunity. He was convicted and imprisoned.

So, we’ve seen this movie before. Maduro’s lawyers will mount the same legal challenges. But if the past is prologue, there is little reason to believe that the ending will be any different.  

This leaves the rather vacant claim by Trump adversaries that his actions somehow violated the norms and customs of international law. It is a common accusation that is often lacking in substance.  

Some point to Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, which prohibits member nations from ‘the use of force against the territorial integrity’ of any state. However, the Charter provides an exception for self-defense.

As evidenced by the charges stated in Madura’s indictment, his actions as a narco-terrorist flooding the U.S. with deadly drugs fully justifies Trump’s actions as defensive in nature. Continued drug trafficking posed an imminent threat to the lives of American citizens.

If a conflict of American versus international law exists, our president’s obligations under Article II of the Constitution takes precedence and priority over Article 2 of the U.N. Charter. Members of the United Nations can complain all they want, but the U.S. has veto power in the UN Security Council.           

Most Venezuelans seem relieved that the long nightmare of tyranny, oppression and death at the hands Hugo Chavez and Nicolas Maduro is finally over. Their land is rich with the world’s largest oil reserves.

If free and fair elections are held, as they should be, the impoverished citizens of this proud nation can share in a brighter future of freedom, economic recovery and financial prosperity.

They will have President Trump to thank for that.

President Donald Trump issued a pointed warning to Venezuela’s new leader on Sunday, suggesting severe consequences if she continues to resist U.S. demands following the American-led operation that resulted in the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.

In an interview with The Atlantic, Trump said Delcy Rodríguez would ‘pay a very big price, probably bigger than Maduro’ if she fails to ‘do what’s right,’ adding that his administration would not tolerate what he described as her defiant rejection of the U.S. intervention.

Defending that approach, Trump said, ‘Rebuilding there and regime change, anything you want to call it, is better than what you have right now. Can’t get any worse,’ he added.

The White House did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment. 

Trump’s remarks followed a stunning predawn announcement Saturday that U.S. operators had carried out a mission to capture Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife.

Speaking at a news conference at Mar-a-Lago, Trump said a U.S.-appointed team would ‘run Venezuela’ until the country’s political leadership was stabilized.

He also pledged a return of U.S. energy investment to the cash-strapped Latin American country which sits atop the world’s largest oil reserves. 

Trump framed his foreign policy approach, according to The Atlantic, through what he described as a modernized version of the Monroe Doctrine, the 19th-century policy opposing European colonial influence in the Western Hemisphere. 

Trump referred to his approach as the ‘Donroe Doctrine.’

Trump also hinted that Venezuela would not be the last nation to face U.S. pressure, raising the prospect of additional interventions beyond Latin America.

As an example, he reiterated his long-standing interest in Greenland, a semiautonomous territory of Denmark, a NATO ally.

‘We do need Greenland, absolutely,’ Trump told the magazine, citing U.S. national security interests and strategic location.

President Donald Trump’s bold decision to capture, arrest, and bring Venezuelan strongman Nicolás Maduro to trial for drug-related offenses is far bigger than Operation Absolute Resolve itself. It resets the global chessboard. Here are ten reasons why.

First, the Venezuelan operation proves that American military and intelligence capabilities aren’t just better than anybody else’s — they operate in a wholly different dimension. 

Russian President Vladimir Putin has thrown his entire military at Ukraine in hopes of establishing Russian domination and killing President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. The bloody war has dragged on for three years, costing hundreds of thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars, while draining both countries. And still, that war grinds on.

President Trump sent a small group of special forces into Caracas. Within three hours, they had captured President Maduro and his wife, transporting them to New York to face justice in a U.S. court. No Americans were killed.

Operation Absolute Resolve, like Operation Midnight Hammer, which destroyed Iran’s nuclear capabilities in a matter of hours, was carefully planned, flawlessly executed, and 100% successful. Nobody but America could do that — and leaders around the world know it.

Second, as President Trump says, if you kill Americans, you will be held accountable. Maduro and the drug cartels have killed tens of thousands of Americans with drugs. Not only have we now secured our borders and stopped the flow of fentanyl, but we are bringing drug cartel leaders — including the Maduro family — to face justice.

Third, President Trump has just reversed decades of failed American foreign policy. For years, American leaders of both parties ignored the importance of the Western Hemisphere. They dismissed the growing threats from the countries themselves and from anti-American powers seeking to establish footholds in our hemisphere. American leaders turned a blind eye to drug smuggling and human trafficking. The Biden administration, for its own political purposes, actively encouraged a mass invasion across our border by illegal aliens. 

Operation Absolute Resolve, like Operation Midnight Hammer, which destroyed Iran’s nuclear capabilities in a matter of hours, was carefully planned, flawlessly executed, and 100% successful. Nobody but America could do that — and leaders around the world know it.

While we were focused on the forever wars in the Middle East and the dogma of climate change, three groups were moving into South and Central America — the Chinese, the cartels, and the communists.

Trump’s new national security strategy puts the Western Hemisphere at the center of our foreign policy. Trump allies and reformers now govern Argentina, Chile, Paraguay, and El Salvador — and potentially Venezuela. His long-term vision is a North and South America united by similar economic and governance systems, working in harmony for peace and prosperity.

Fourth, President Trump has reestablished the Monroe Doctrine, which forbids foreign powers from operating in the Western Hemisphere. Two hundred years ago, President Monroe warned European powers against interfering in the Americas. Sixty years ago, President Kennedy used the Monroe Doctrine to keep Soviet missiles out of Cuba. Forty years ago, President Reagan used it to stop the Soviet Union from establishing military bases in the Caribbean. The Monroe Doctrine was a foundational principle of American foreign policy, establishing the Western Hemisphere as an American zone of influence.

The Obama administration abandoned the Monroe Doctrine. Secretary of State John Kerry unilaterally declared it dead. The Biden administration also abandoned the Monroe Doctrine by looking the other way while Russia, China, and Iran established footholds in several countries.

By sending the American armada into the Caribbean, President Trump reinstated the Monroe Doctrine and declared, ‘American dominance in the Western Hemisphere will never be questioned again.’

The new Monroe Doctrine is not an effort to keep our southern neighbors down; it is intended to keep malign powers out.

Fifth, President Trump uses not only military might but all aspects of American power — especially trade, finance, and technology — to influence world events. Before he dispatched special forces to capture Maduro, Trump put massive economic pressure on Venezuela. Maduro relied on a ghost fleet of unregistered tankers to illegally ship oil abroad, especially to China.

These transactions were sanctioned but never enforced. Oil sales brought Maduro about $200 million a week, which he used to bribe and blackmail Venezuelan kleptocrats and pay his military. President Trump enforced those sanctions and seized the oil tankers. By cutting off his main source of funding, it was only a matter of time before Maduro ran out of money.

Sixth, critics are quick to accuse Trump of the policies he once criticized — regime change, nation-building, and forever wars. They’re wrong. President Trump has learned from the failures of the past — he doesn’t want to repeat them. President George W. Bush overthrew the Iraqi and Afghan governments, fired government technocrats, and imposed U.S. occupations that were doomed from the beginning. He tried to impose Western-style democracies on countries that were neither suited for it nor wanted it. He got us tangled in decades of wars we couldn’t win, with massive losses in blood and treasure.

President Obama made the opposite mistake. He helped topple dictators during the Arab Spring but then walked away from the ensuing chaos, under the misguided assumption that these countries would immediately embrace democracy on their own.

President Bush tried to do too much. President Obama did too little. Both failed.

If critics had listened carefully to President Trump’s press conferences and statements, they would realize he aims to chart a different course. Trump said the U.S. would ‘run’ Venezuela until governance could be turned over to the Venezuelans. That’s a far cry from decades of occupation and nation-building.

Until Maduro and his predecessor, Hugo Chávez, seized power, Venezuela had a long tradition of democracy, with regular elections, a free press, and an independent judiciary. Trump isn’t trying to run Venezuela forever. He is already negotiating with remaining members of the Maduro government and political opposition groups for a smooth and quick transfer of power to the Venezuelan people, overseen by the U.S.

Seventh, the oil. The future, in both manufacturing and artificial intelligence, belongs to countries with technological superiority and inexpensive, abundant energy resources. Venezuela has the world’s largest known oil reserves but needs investment to modernize production. American companies have a long history of working with Venezuelan oil companies, and we can do so again. It will be a win-win for the U.S. and Venezuela.

But there is a secondary effect of increased Venezuelan oil production: over time, it will drive down global prices. Russia and Iran rely on oil sales to fund their governments. More oil worldwide means lower prices, which means less income for our enemies.

Eighth, corrupt, incompetent, America-hating dictators should take note. With American help, Maduro is now gone. If the United States and Venezuela, working together, succeed in establishing a new government that restores capitalism and democracy, it will succeed.

If so, could Venezuela be the spark that ignites other democratic reform movements? Cuba is kept alive by Maduro’s drug money. What happens when that money runs out? What happens to the pro-Maduro Colombian government once a new Venezuelan government is formed?

Ninth, the world will now see firsthand what the American legal system looks like. Maduro will be tried in the U.S., in a public courtroom, with the world watching. The Justice Department has worked for years to build a solid case against Maduro for narcoterrorism, drug trafficking, and money laundering. It will show Maduro’s personal connections to drug cartels and human trafficking. It may also shine a light on malign foreign involvement by Iran, Russia, and China.

Finally — and in some ways most importantly — President Trump has overcome the loser syndrome. For years, China has told the world that America is a nation in irreversible economic and moral decline. We fought and lost forever wars in the Middle East. Biden’s Afghanistan withdrawal was shambolic. We have been pushed around by our enemies and disrespected by our allies. Our own leaders have been corrupt, incompetent, and unresponsive.

That has now changed. Our economy is at the starting gate of significant growth. Trillions are being invested in American manufacturing. Our technology and energy sectors are unleashed. We have the most powerful and capable military in the world. Our leaders — especially President Trump — are decisive, confident, and unafraid. More and more people at home and abroad no longer see an America in decline but an America perhaps poised for a new Golden Age.

Tensions between Israel and Turkey are rising amid competing visions for Gaza’s reconstruction and widening strategic friction in Syria, even as both countries remain embedded in a U.S.-led diplomatic framework following the ceasefire with Hamas.

Israel has made clear it will not allow Turkish armed forces to operate inside Gaza, viewing Ankara as a destabilizing actor despite its public efforts to present itself as a reconstruction partner. Turkish sources told Fox News Digital that Ankara does not seek to deploy troops in Gaza, instead focusing on humanitarian aid, infrastructure projects and political influence. 

Dan Diker, president of the Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs, said Israel views Turkey as a strategic threat rather than a neutral actor. 

‘From Israel’s point of view, Turkey is the arsonist behaving like the firefighter in Gaza,’ Diker told Fox News Digital. ‘If Turkey is allowed to enter Gaza with several thousand armed men, you can guarantee that this Muslim Brotherhood country will destabilize Gaza and dismantle the very 20-point plan that President Trump has bet the farm on.’

Diker said President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s ambitions extend beyond Gaza, pointing to Turkey’s military presence in northwestern Syria and what he described as Ankara’s long-standing role enabling radical Islamist groups inside the country.

In Trump’s remarks at Mar-a-Lago on Monday at his press conference with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, he repeatedly praised Erdogan and downplayed concerns about a possible Israel-Turkey confrontation.

‘I know President Erdogan very well… he’s a very good friend of mine,’ Trump said. ‘Bibi respects him… They’re not going to have a problem. Nothing’s going to happen.’ Netanyahu smiled and didn’t comment.

At the same time, Trump aligned himself publicly with Netanyahu on Gaza’s future, issuing his strongest statement yet that Hamas must disarm.

‘They made an agreement that they were going to disarm,’ Trump said. ‘If they’re not going to disarm, those same countries will go and wipe out Hamas.’

According to Diker, the president is deliberately managing tensions with Ankara by keeping Erdogan inside the diplomatic framework rather than confronting him publicly.

‘President Trump is very, very good at keeping adversaries close, together with allies,’ Diker said. ‘That’s why he keeps saying that he likes Erdogan. He wants to keep Erdogan in the party. He wants to keep him close.’

Diker said Trump understands his own leverage in the region and believes he can coalesce Arab and Muslim states when it serves U.S. and Israeli interests, citing coordination during the first phase of the hostage deal.

Diker said Netanyahu is now walking a narrow line, trying not to undermine the framework Trump has built while ensuring Israel’s security red lines are maintained.

‘Israel will not allow Turkish Armed Forces in Gaza. It’s not going to happen,’ Diker said, adding that Israel may still be forced into limited compromises to preserve Trump’s broader support, particularly on Iran.

Beyond Gaza, Israel sees Turkey’s role in Syria as a growing point of friction. Ankara maintains influence across large swaths of northern Syria, while Israel has continued air operations aimed at Iranian targets.

Sinan Ciddi, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, warned in an analysis that Turkey views Israel-aligned regional cooperation as a direct challenge to its ambitions.

Ciddi cited a trilateral summit between Israel, Greece and Cyprus in Jerusalem as a flashpoint, arguing it signaled resistance to Turkey’s ‘Blue Homeland’ doctrine and broader maritime claims in the Eastern Mediterranean.

Following the summit, pro-Erdogan media outlets described Israel as a major threat, while Turkey increased military activity that alarmed U.S. allies, including airspace violations near Greece and reported efforts to expand radar coverage in Syria that could hinder Israeli operations against Iran.

Diker said Israel’s recognition of Somaliland adds another layer to the rivalry, particularly in the Red Sea region. ‘The Turks are working in Somalia. They are also working to control and influence what happens in the Red Sea region,’ Diker said. ‘Which is why Somaliland’s development is very, very important.’

He argued that the move gives Israel a strategic foothold along a vital maritime corridor.

‘Israel then has a strategic base, a forward base in Somaliland on the Red Sea,’ Diker said. ‘Very, very important, because it checkmates Turkey.’

Diker said the move was viewed in Ankara as a direct challenge to Turkish ambitions in the Horn of Africa, adding that the Trump administration had ‘expressed its understanding’ of Israel’s decision.

Despite Erdogan’s harsh rhetoric toward Israel and vocal support for the Palestinian cause, Turkish diplomatic sources say Ankara is acting pragmatically. While Turkey sees financial and political opportunity in Gaza’s reconstruction, those sources say Erdogan is aware there is little domestic appetite for sending Turkish troops into the enclave.

That gap between rhetoric and policy, analysts say, is likely to persist. As Diker put it, Trump is trying to keep the diplomatic structure intact while Israel works to contain what it sees as Turkey’s expanding regional footprint. ‘Trump does not want to topple the apple cart,’ Diker said. ‘He wants to try to keep everyone together so that they can move to stage two of the 20-point plan in Gaza.’

Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado issued an open call for a transfer of power Saturday, urging the military to abandon Nicolás Maduro’s government and recognize opposition-backed candidate Edmundo González as president after the U.S. said Maduro had been captured.

Machado’s statement came hours after President Donald Trump announced that U.S. forces had captured Maduro following what he described as ‘large-scale’ military strikes targeting the Venezuelan government. Trump said Maduro and his wife were flown out of the country, a move that would mark the most direct U.S. military action against a Latin American head of state in decades.

‘The hour of freedom has arrived,’ wrote in a post on X. ‘This is the hour of the citizens. Those of us who risked everything for democracy on July 28th. Those of us who elected Edmundo González Urrutia as the legitimate President of Venezuela, who must immediately assume his constitutional mandate and be recognized as Commander-in-Chief of the National Armed Forces by all the officers and soldiers who comprise it.’

It remained unclear Saturday whether senior commanders have shifted allegiance or whether the opposition has secured control of state institutions.

Machado also called on Venezuelans inside the country to remain ‘vigilant, active and organized,’ signaling that further instructions would be communicated through official opposition channels. To Venezuelans abroad, she urged immediate mobilization to pressure foreign governments to recognize a new leadership in Caracas.

The U.S. conducted strikes on Caracas early Saturday morning and took Maduro and his wife into custody and flew them to New York to face drug trafficking charges.

Machado and González have repeatedly argued that the July 28 presidential election was stolen, pointing to an opposition-run parallel vote count that they say shows González won by a wide margin.

Venezuela’s electoral authorities, which are controlled by Maduro allies, declared him the winner with just under 52% of the vote, compared with roughly 43% for González. The government has rejected allegations of fraud.

The opposition, however, says it collected and published tally sheets from polling stations nationwide showing González received about two-thirds of the vote, compared with roughly 30% for Maduro — a claim cited by several foreign governments that declined to recognize the official results.

Maduro’s government has refused to release detailed precinct-level data to independently verify the outcome, further fueling accusations that the election did not reflect the will of voters.

While González is the opposition-backed presidential candidate, Machado has remained the dominant figure in Venezuela’s opposition movement. Machado won the opposition’s primary by a landslide before being barred from running by Maduro’s government, forcing the coalition to rally behind González as a substitute candidate.

Throughout the campaign, González publicly acknowledged Machado as the movement’s leader, with Machado continuing to direct strategy, messaging and voter mobilization efforts. Machado has remained the public face of the opposition, while González has largely played a formal, constitutional role tied to the presidency.