Mexico’s response to the unexpected U.S. military operation in Venezuela was forceful, formal, and rooted in long-standing principles of international law. In early January 2026, reports emerged that U.S. forces had carried out a surprise strike in Caracas that resulted in the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores. The operation drew immediate global attention, with governments, international organizations, and regional leaders weighing in on the legal and ethical implications. Among these, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum issued a rare and pointed public rebuke of Washington, accusing the United States of violating international law and overstepping its authority by using military force against another sovereign state. Mexico’s statement framed the incident not merely as a diplomatic dispute, but as a broader challenge to core principles governing interstate relations and the sovereignty of all nations. Central to Sheinbaum’s criticism was a direct reference to fundamental international legal norms, especially Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, which prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. Mexico’s foreign ministry explicitly cited this provision in its official statement, asserting that the U.S. action constituted a clear violation of these obligations. The government reiterated that unilateral military operations undermine the framework designed to prevent conflict and preserve peace. Mexican officials also invoked the country’s constitutional commitment to non-intervention—a doctrine enshrined both in national law and in longstanding diplomatic tradition—that rejects external interference in the internal affairs of other countries, regardless of the nature of their governments or the accusations levied against them. Sheinbaum’s denunciation resonated beyond legal technicalities; it tapped into deep historical memories within Latin America of foreign interventions, covert operations, and externally imposed regime changes that have, in many cases, resulted in instability and long-term unrest. Mexico’s president voiced her belief that intervention rarely brings genuine democracy or lasting peace, a point she reiterated during televised press conferences and official briefings. In urging a response from the United Nations and the Organization of American States (OAS), Sheinbaum called for multilaterally guided dialogue and peaceful resolution of disputes, rather than recourse to military force. She also underscored that even when a government has been accused of serious crimes, any legal process must occur through established judicial mechanisms with full guarantees, not through extrajudicial military action. Mexico’s stance struck a chord in parts of the region where governments and civil society groups were already voicing unease over the U.S. operation. Countries such as Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Spain, and Uruguay signed joint statements criticising the military action and expressing concern over unilateral force used on Venezuelan territory, emphasizing respect for sovereignty and peaceful conflict resolution. Mexico also stressed that Latin America and the Caribbean should remain a “zone of peace” based on mutual respect and the peaceful settlement of disputes. The call for an active role by the U.N. in safeguarding sovereignty reflects a broader regional desire to uphold international norms and prevent escalation, especially in a hemisphere historically sensitive to interventions by external powers. While rejecting the U.S. operation, Sheinbaum’s comments also carried a subtle message to Washington about the broader framework of bilateral cooperation. Mexico has been engaged with the United States on issues such as migration, trade, public security, and drug interdiction efforts, emphasizing partnership while insisting that respect for sovereignty and international law cannot be overlooked. Sheinbaum has made clear that cooperation must not come at the expense of silence on matters of war and peace—implying that silence in the face of what Mexico perceives as violation of legal norms could jeopardize trust and cooperation on other issues vital to both nations. Her government urged that future differences be handled through diplomatic channels and multilateral forums, rather than through military coercion. Ultimately, Mexico’s reaction to the U.S. military operation in Venezuela reflects broader tensions over how global powers exercise influence and how international norms are upheld in practice. Sheinbaum’s statements reinforced Mexico’s longstanding identity as a sovereign nation committed to non-intervention, peaceful dispute resolution, and respect for the rule of law. By elevating the issue to international legal principles and appealing to institutions like the United Nations, Mexico has signaled a desire for stronger multilateral engagement in crises that transcend bilateral disputes. The fallout from the U.S. action and the capture of Nicolás Maduro continues to unfold, and the debate over legitimacy, sovereignty, and the rules governing the use of force is likely to shape diplomatic relations across the Americas in the months ahead.