Venezuela crisis: The US military operation in Venezuela on January 3, described in Washington as a “surgical” intervention—has altered Latin America’s geopolitical context. It has also triggered a public health emergency that extends far beyond the immediate battlefield. By forcibly removing President Nicolás Maduro and targeting urban infrastructure in Caracas, the intervention has disrupted the structural determinants of health for a population of nearly 28 million.
While the US administration has framed its action in terms of counter-narcotics and democratic restoration, international law tells a different story. Legal experts argue that the operation breaches Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity of a sovereign state. From a public health perspective, this is not a peripheral concern. Respect for sovereignty underpins the global health system, including disease surveillance, humanitarian access, and adherence to the International Health Regulations (IHR 2005).
READ | US intervention in Venezuela threatens rules-based global order
The immediate casualties—official estimates cite at least 115 deaths in Caracas—are only the visible edge of a deeper crisis. The larger damage lies in the breakdown of health systems, energy supplies, and social stability in a country already facing severe shortages of medicines and trained medical personnel.
Public health system under fire
Venezuela entered 2026 with a fragile healthcare network. Maternal mortality had risen sharply over the past decade, and preventable outbreaks of malaria and measles had re-emerged due to gaps in vaccination coverage. The January 3 strikes worsened these vulnerabilities by disrupting electricity grids and transport corridors critical to hospitals.
Power outages in urban centres are not merely an inconvenience. Intensive care units, neonatal wards, and dialysis centres depend on uninterrupted electricity. Cold-chain failures threaten the viability of insulin, vaccines, and blood products. For patients with chronic illnesses, these disruptions are often fatal.
Beyond physical infrastructure, military occupation produces well-documented psychological harm. Evidence from conflict settings shows that prolonged exposure to violence induces toxic stress, particularly among children, with long-term consequences for cognitive development and mental health. These effects cannot be captured by injury counts alone, but they shape a population’s health outcomes for decades.
Political economy of health
President Donald Trump’s public assertion that the United States would “run” Venezuela and “get the oil flowing” stripped away any remaining ambiguity about the commercial drivers of the intervention. Control over oil revenues translates into control over food imports, water treatment, and public spending on health.
The ongoing naval enforcement around Venezuelan oil exports has already produced spillover effects. Cuba’s electricity grid, heavily dependent on Venezuelan fuel supplies, has experienced repeated collapses since the intervention. This illustrates how coercive economic measures in one country can trigger a regional “contagion of deprivation,” undermining health security across borders.
When access to calories, clean water, and medicines becomes contingent on external political decisions, public health shifts from a national responsibility to a tool of geopolitical leverage. That is a dangerous precedent.
READ | Venezuela and the return of gunboat diplomacy
Limits of the ‘narcoterrorism’ narrative
The justification of the intervention under the banner of “narcoterrorism” ignores the economic reality of global drug markets. From a public health and economic standpoint, narcotics consumption is driven by inelastic demand. Price increases and supply disruptions rarely reduce usage among dependent populations; instead, they push users toward more potent and dangerous substitutes, as seen globally with the shift from prescription opioids to fentanyl and synthetic analogues.
Drug dependence is also shaped by social conditions—poverty, untreated trauma, and lack of mental health care. Militarised supply-side actions do little to address these drivers. History shows that criminalisation alone pushes users underground, discourages treatment, and sustains illicit markets rather than dismantling them.
Criminalisation versus public health
Decades of evidence from the “War on Drugs” demonstrate that treating drug use primarily as a criminal issue undermines public health objectives. Arrest-focused strategies increase risky behaviours, accelerate disease transmission, and overload prison systems without reducing demand.
Applying this failed model through military force in another country compounds the harm. It weakens already stressed health systems and diverts resources away from prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation—areas where measurable public health gains are possible.
International law matters for global health
In a January 3 statement, UN Secretary-General António Guterres warned that the US action could have serious regional consequences and set a dangerous precedent. His concern goes beyond diplomacy. Global health security depends on predictable rules. The IHR (2005) require states to avoid actions that unnecessarily disrupt international travel, trade, and disease control.
When powerful countries sidestep these norms, health infrastructure becomes a legitimate target and humanitarian access becomes negotiable. For low- and middle-income countries, this erodes trust in global health governance and weakens collective responses to cross-border threats.
READ | Venezuela and the return of gunboat diplomacy
Venezuela crisis: What the WHO and PAHO must do
The scale and nature of the crisis meet the criteria for a Grade 3 emergency under the World Health Organisation’s Emergency Response Framework—the highest level, requiring organisation-wide mobilisation. Before the strikes, an estimated 7.9 million Venezuelans already needed humanitarian assistance. Military escalation risks a new displacement wave that would strain health systems in Colombia and Brazil.
Three steps are urgent.
First, WHO and its regional office, PAHO, should activate the Incident Management System immediately and appoint a global incident manager to coordinate a neutral health response. Hospitals and medical supply chains must be designated and respected as no-fire zones.
Second, rapid assessment teams should monitor electricity supply and cold-chain integrity across northern Venezuela. Restoring power to civilian hospitals is a medical priority, not a political concession.
Third, border health screening and trauma care must be established at key crossings, particularly in Cúcuta and Pacaraima, to address malnutrition, mental health needs, and the risk of infectious disease spread linked to displacement.
Public health cannot be reduced to an afterthought in geopolitical contests. Sovereignty is not an abstract legal principle; it is a prerequisite for functioning health systems and accountable public policy. When military power overrides international norms, health outcomes deteriorate rapidly and predictably.
The World Health Organisation has often been described as the ethical voice of global health. In Venezuela, silence would amount to acquiescence. A Grade 3 response, grounded in neutrality and law, is not optional. It is the minimum required to protect civilian life when politics has failed.
READ | India-US ties: Partnership under pressure
Dr Joe Thomas is Global Public Health Chair at Sustainable Policy Solutions Foundation, a policy think tank based in New Delhi. He is also Professor of Public Health at Institute of Health and Management, Victoria, Australia. Opinions expressed in this article are personal.