Venezuela entered one of the most dramatic and consequential moments in its modern history when the Supreme Tribunal of Justice declared President Nicolás Maduro unable to govern following his sudden removal from the country by foreign forces. The decision, announced in the opening days of 2026, sent shockwaves through Venezuelan society and reverberated across the international system. According to official statements from Caracas, Maduro was apprehended on Venezuelan soil and transported abroad, an act the government described as an unprecedented violation of national sovereignty. Within hours, the judiciary convened in emergency session, characterizing the situation as an extraordinary rupture of constitutional normality. The tribunal argued that the president’s physical absence, under circumstances beyond his control, constituted a temporary and material impossibility to exercise office. To prevent what it described as a dangerous power vacuum, the court invoked its interpretive authority and transferred executive powers to Vice President Delcy Rodríguez. This judicial intervention, framed as a measure to preserve continuity of government, immediately ignited fierce debate over constitutional legality, political legitimacy, and the limits of judicial power in moments of national crisis.

The ruling of the Supreme Tribunal rested on an expansive interpretation of constitutional provisions addressing presidential incapacity. Venezuelan constitutional law anticipates scenarios such as death, resignation, or permanent disability, but it does not explicitly contemplate the forcible removal of a sitting president by foreign actors. Faced with this legal ambiguity, the court asserted that it possessed the authority to define the nature of Maduro’s absence and to determine the appropriate institutional response. By declaring the incapacity temporary rather than permanent, the tribunal avoided triggering provisions that would have required immediate elections. Instead, it authorized Delcy Rodríguez to assume the full functions of the presidency on an interim basis, arguing that stability and institutional continuity took precedence in an emergency of such magnitude. Critics, however, contended that the decision stretched constitutional language beyond its intended meaning and entrenched an already politicized judiciary. Supporters countered that extraordinary circumstances demanded flexible interpretation to safeguard the state from collapse. This legal confrontation became the foundation of a broader struggle over the meaning of constitutional order in Venezuela.

Delcy Rodríguez’s swearing-in as interim president marked a pivotal shift in the country’s political landscape. A long-standing figure within the ruling movement and a close ally of Maduro, Rodríguez presented herself as the guardian of continuity rather than a break with the past. In her inaugural address, she emphasized calm, unity, and institutional resilience, promising that government programs, social services, and diplomatic engagements would continue uninterrupted. She denounced the circumstances surrounding Maduro’s removal as an act of aggression and pledged to defend Venezuela’s sovereignty through legal and diplomatic channels. The ceremony, broadcast nationwide, was carefully staged to project legitimacy and control, with senior military officials and members of the pro-government National Assembly in attendance. Rodríguez’s leadership was immediately tested by the need to reassure both domestic and international audiences that Venezuela remained governable despite the unprecedented shock to its executive branch.

Inside Venezuela, public reaction was sharply divided, reflecting years of polarization and mistrust. Supporters of the ruling party rallied in major cities, framing the events as a foreign assault on national dignity and independence. State media amplified this narrative, portraying Rodríguez as a stabilizing force standing against external domination. Demonstrations, speeches, and symbolic acts emphasized resistance and sovereignty. At the same time, opposition figures and civil society groups expressed skepticism toward the Supreme Tribunal’s decision and questioned the legitimacy of an interim presidency born from judicial decree rather than popular mandate. Some viewed Maduro’s removal as an opportunity to confront longstanding grievances related to authoritarianism, economic collapse, and human rights abuses, while others warned that endorsing such an outcome risked normalizing extra-constitutional interventions. For ordinary Venezuelans, the political drama unfolded against the backdrop of persistent economic hardship, inflation, and shortages, deepening anxiety about the future and the practical consequences of continued instability.

The international response underscored the geopolitical complexity of the crisis. The United States defended its actions by citing longstanding criminal charges against Maduro, framing the operation as a law-enforcement matter rather than a political intervention. This justification was met with widespread skepticism across Latin America, where memories of past interventions remain potent. Several regional governments condemned the removal as a violation of sovereignty and called for respect for international law. Others adopted a more cautious tone, acknowledging concerns about corruption and governance in Venezuela while emphasizing the need for due process and multilateral solutions. European governments and international organizations expressed alarm at the precedent set by targeting a sitting head of state and urged restraint, dialogue, and adherence to legal norms. The episode reignited global debates over sovereignty, immunity, and the balance between combating transnational crime and respecting the territorial integrity of states.

Within Venezuela’s institutions, the crisis exposed underlying tensions and uncertainties about loyalty and authority. The role of the armed forces emerged as a central question, as their support has historically been decisive in moments of political upheaval. Public statements from military leaders affirming allegiance to the constitutional order and the interim president were carefully scrutinized for signs of dissent or division. Meanwhile, legal scholars dissected the tribunal’s ruling, debating whether its interpretation could withstand future scrutiny or whether it would be viewed as another example of judicial overreach. Opposition parties, though fragmented, renewed calls for elections and international mediation, arguing that only a return to popular sovereignty could resolve the legitimacy crisis. The judiciary, legislature, and executive branches became entwined in a delicate balancing act, each seeking to assert authority while avoiding a descent into open institutional conflict.

As the weeks following the ruling unfolded, Venezuela found itself at a crossroads with implications far beyond its borders. Delcy Rodríguez’s interim presidency became both a symbol of continuity for supporters of the existing order and a focal point of contention for critics demanding change. The removal of Maduro and the court’s response altered the narrative of Venezuela’s long-running crisis, introducing new legal and geopolitical dimensions to an already complex struggle. Whether the episode would lead to meaningful political transformation, prolonged instability, or a negotiated settlement remained uncertain. What was clear, however, was that the events of early 2026 had irrevocably reshaped Venezuela’s constitutional and political landscape. They forced Venezuelans and the international community alike to confront difficult questions about power, legitimacy, and the fragile boundaries between law and force in an increasingly volatile world.