A US diplomatic team arrived in Venezuela Jan. 9, marking the first such visit since the US military operation that resulted in the capture of former President Nicolás Maduro last week.

The Venezuelan government, now led by interim President Delcy Rodríguez, confirmed the delegation’s presence and announced the initiation of an "exploratory process" aimed at re-establishing formal diplomatic relations between the two nations.

The small team, comprising diplomats and security officials from the US State Department, traveled to Caracas to conduct preliminary technical and logistical assessments for a potential phased resumption of US embassy operations, which have been shuttered since 2019. In a statement, the Venezuelan Foreign Ministry, under Minister Yvan Gil, described the move as a step toward "re-establishing diplomatic missions in both countries," and indicated that a reciprocal Venezuelan delegation would soon visit Washington.

The announcement follows US President Donald Trump's recent comments on Venezuela’s political prisoners’ release as a gesture toward peace and his cancellation of planned additional military actions.

This development comes less than a week after the Jan. 3 US Special Forces operation in Caracas that led to Maduro’s capture at the Fuerte Tiuna military complex. Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, were transported to New York, where they pleaded not guilty on Jan. 5 to federal charges including narcotics trafficking, narco-terrorism, and weapons offenses. Maduro’s defense attorney, Barry Pollack, has signaled intent to challenge the proceedings on grounds of "military abduction," arguing the arrest violated international law and Venezuelan sovereignty. Legal experts have referenced US Supreme Court precedents, such as United States v. Alvarez-Machain, which held that forcible abductions from foreign soil do not necessarily preclude prosecution in US courts absent explicit treaty violations.

The operation, which reportedly caused around 100 deaths and drew widespread international condemnation, has been defended by the Trump administration as necessary to address Maduro's alleged drug trafficking and terrorism ties. Critics, including US lawmakers like Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman, have labeled it an "illegal military assault" and unprecedented kidnapping of a foreign leader. Allies of Venezuela, such as Russia, China, and Iran, denounced the action as a breach of international norms.

In Venezuela, the interim government has reportedly been relying on paramilitary groups and civilian militias to maintain order since the seizure of Maduro. Rodríguez's administration has emphasized domestic stability while navigating the diplomatic overtures, which could facilitate access to Venezuela's vast oil reserves, discussed during Trump's recent meetings with US oil executives. (Jurist)

The US Department of Justice (DoJ) on Jan. 13 released a previously classified memorandum assessing the legality of the Pentagon's Operation Absolute Resolve, which led to the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. Heavily redacted, it concludes that the president possesses the constitutional authority to order the military operation, which ultimately moved forward on January 3.

Drafted in December by Assistant Attorney General Elliot Gaiser of the DoJ's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), the memo relies on the OLC's historical framework for evaluating presidential use of military force. Under that framework, the analysis considers whether the action serves important national interests, and whether the expected scope of the operation would rise to the level of "war" in a constitutional sense. Using these benchmarks, the memo identifies several considerations supporting the use of military force, including the severity of Maduro's alleged criminal activity, intelligence assessments regarding weapons caches and associated cartel activity, risks to regional stability, and ongoing humanitarian conditions inside Venezuela.

The analysis puts the anticipated scope of the operation in historical context, comparing it to prior US military actions in Haiti and Kosovo, which were previously viewed as consistent with presidential authority. While the memo concludes that the operation would not constitute "war" under the US constitution, and therefore does not require congressional authorization, it acknowledges that the use of force would qualify as an "armed conflict" under international law. Hence, the operation would remain subject to International Humanitarian Law (IHL) principles, including proportionality of military attacks and the requirement to distinguish between combatants and civilians.

The memo also addresses whether the US government could still prosecute Maduro if the operation was deemed to be in excess of presidential authority. Citing the 1992 Supreme Court case US v. Alvarez-Machain, the memo explains that an unlawful or extraterritorial seizure of a defendant does not inherently deprive US courts of prosecutorial jurisdiction. Alvarez-Machain affirmed the legal principle of male captus bene detentus, which states that a defendant who is wrongfully captured may still be lawfully detained and tried.

Lastly, the analysis considers whether US government or military personnel could face legal exposure if the operation was ruled unlawful. It concludes that the “public authority” doctrine likely protects these personnel, as they would be acting within the scope of their assigned duties. However, the memo cautions that the actual limits of these protections are not fully settled.

The memo provides valuable insight into the planning that went into Operation Absolute Resolve, and the DoJ's publication of this insight comes amidst a developing situation in Venezuela that touches on broad international tensions. United Nations experts jointly condemned the US bombardment of Caracas as an act of aggression and thus a clear breach of the UN Charter, Art. 2(4). (Jurist)

Delcy Rodríguez, Venezuela's interim President, has had to perform an intense balancing act between a Chavista base hungry for anti-imperialist defiance and Trump, who has threatened her with "a fate worse than Maduro" if she does not comply. This dynamic was on display on Jan.15, when Rodríguez delivered her first address to lawmakers. She went to great lengths to defend the country's sovereignty and denounce the US attack while refraining from naming Trump directly. She also called for reforms to the country's hydrocarbon laws to enable greater foreign investment—a key US demand—while characterizing that investment as a necessary vehicle to fund crucial Chavista social programs. The president's speech, which began with a minute of applause to honor those killed during the US attack, came the day after she spoke by phone with Trump, a call described positively by both—Trump called her a "terrific person."

Rodríguez also called for a "new political moment" that allows for "political and ideological diversity." A key tenet of this promise has been the government's recent moves to release scores of political prisoners, though the exact number is in dispute. While top lawmaker and president's brother Jorge Rodríguez claimed more than 400 prisoners had been released, rights groups say the number is closer to 70. Though Rodríguez has vowed to continue releasing prisoners, she responded to criticism of the slow pace by accusing NGOs of "lying to the world" and warning that dissent would be tolerated only "with respect for human rights." (NACLA Update)

Venezuela's acting president Delcy Rodríguez had her first call with President Trump Jan. 15, in which they discussed "oil, minerals, trade and national security," the US leader said – adding that she was "a terrific person."

The next day, CIA director John Ratcliffe arrived in Caracas to meet Rodríguez. Ratcliffe's trip to Caracas would have been unthinkable just weeks ago, especially to visit US-sanctioned nationalist politician Rodriguez, handpicked successor to captured Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro. (TNH, PBS)