When questioned by a reporter what his new year’s resolution was, President Trump responded “Peace. Peace on Earth”. Three days later he launched an unprecedented attack on Venezuela. On Saturday 3 January, the FIFA peace prize recipient announced a large-scale US strike on Venezuela and the capturing of Nicolás Maduro, and his wife, Cilia Flores. The couple have now been indicted in New York on terrorism and drugs charges. Trump says the US is going to “run” Venezuela “until such time as we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition”. The attack saw at least 40 people, including civilians and Venezuelan soldiers, die. Therefore it appears Mr Trump is going to have to find another new year’s resolution.

No one will mourn the removal of Nicolas Maduro. In fact, many Venezuelan immigrants in the US and the UK have celebrated his capture, saying “it is impossible not to feel relief”. The Venezuelan leader is seen by many as a dictator as he relied on the secret police, disappearances and persecution to keep his grip on power. He has run an authoritarian state since 2013 with the help of elections widely regarded as rigged and fraudulent. Over seven million Venezuelans fled the country during his rule. So now there is one less dictator in the world terrorising its people. Whilst some people may consider this to be a victory, it cannot be denied that the manner in which he was removed is deeply troubling and raises significant geopolitical concerns about international law and state sovereignty.

This military operation appears to have little to no legal or constitutional authority. The US has ultimately invaded a sovereign nation without UN authorisation, kidnapped a sitting head of state and has done so acting not on the basis of international law but on its own domestic law. State sovereignty is the principle that a state holds supreme and independent authority over its territory and people, free from external control. The US’s actions, therefore, are a serious cause for concern because it sends a message that as long as you have the military clout you can do what you want, to whoever you want, on the international stage. It highlights the erosion of the rules based international order, where law is increasingly overshadowed by power. The geopolitical implications of this are very dangerous. Other powerful nations such as China may feel empowered to pursue their own territorial and strategic ambitions by force.

The public justification of this military operation by the Trump administration has been about drugs. Trump has been focused on fighting the influx of drugs – especially fentanyl and cocaine – into the US. He has framed this attack on Venezuela as a broader war on narcotics and has accused Maduro of running a “narco terrorist organisation”. Without providing evidence, Trump has also accused Maduro of “emptying his prisons and insane asylums” and “forcing” its inmates to migrate to the US. From the justification some may argue that Trump is simply acting in the national interest to protect the American population from the alleged flow of drugs and criminal networks linked to Maduro. Framed this way, the operation can be presented as a defensive measure aimed at safeguarding public health and domestic security, rather than as an overtly aggressive act against a sovereign state.

However, it would be illogical to think that this is the only reason for the attack. In fact, many of Trump’s claims about drugs have been criticised as there is little evidence.

For example, counternarcotic experts have explained that Venezuela is a minor player when it comes to global drug trafficking. Cocaine is mainly produced in Colombia and most of it is said to enter the US through other routes, rather than Venezuela. Fentanyl, the other drug that Trump has raised concerns about, is mainly produced in Mexico and enters the US almost exclusively via land through its southern border. 

Therefore, it would appear that the central basis of justification for this attack is very weak. Realist international relations theory teaches us that states are self-interested, power-seeking actors driven by survival in an anarchic world. This means that they will use any means necessary to achieve their aims. In this case, the US has ignored the principle of state sovereignty in order to achieve its objectives. For some, its objectives extend beyond the stated aim of combating drug trafficking. Maduro and political commentators have accused the US of using the so-called “war on drugs” as a pretext to secure access to Venezuela’s vast oil reserves. Venezuela has the largest proven oil reserves of any country in the world, making it an especially attractive target for external influence and intervention. Therefore, it is hard to believe that the rationale behind this military operation was drug-related.

Analysis from Sky News highlights exactly why Trump may be seeking access to Venezuelan oil. Whilst the US is the world’s largest oil producer, it primarily produces light crude. However, most of its refineries are designed to process heavy oil. Because upgrading refineries would cost billions, the US remains heavily dependent on imports of heavy crude, exporting much of its own oil while importing thousands of barrels daily for refineries in Texas and Louisiana. Venezuela, therefore, is strategically important because it holds some of the world’s largest reserves of heavy oil.

The significance of oil in this whole situation was reinforced by President Trump during his press conference on Saturday in which oil was referred to more than a dozen times. Trump said Venezuela had “stolen” oil from the US and that it would now be taken back. This belief that the oil had been stolen is based on Venezuela’s nationalisation of its oil industry between the 1970s and the 2000s, forcing most US oil companies out. The president also claimed US occupation “won’t cost a penny” as the country will be reimbursed from “money coming out of the ground”. He explained that he plans to have major American energy multinationals invest “billions and billions of dollars” to rebuild the country’s “rotted” oil infrastructure.

Clearly, this has never been solely about drugs. The US’s actions therefore set a dangerous precedent. Whilst the fall of a dictator may offer short-term satisfaction, when achieved at the expense of state sovereignty and the rules based international system, it risks contributing to a more dangerous and unpredictable world.

The Sutton Trust’s Opportunity Index 2025 places London in a category of its own. The capital occupies the overwhelming majority of the highest-ranked constituencies for social mobility, even when levels of deprivation are taken into account. At first glance, this seems to confirm a familiar story. London has stronger schools, better labour markets, more universities, and greater institutional capacity. All of these factors matter. Yet they do not fully explain why London performs so exceptionally when disadvantage is measured using Free School Meal eligibility, the core indicator underpinning the Opportunity Index.

To understand London’s apparent advantage, it is necessary to look beyond outcomes alone and examine how disadvantage is identified, recorded, and acted upon.

London’s educational context

London’s improvement in educational performance is well documented. The London Challenge, launched in the early 2000s, marked a decisive shift in how schools were supported and held accountable. Investment in leadership development, collaboration between schools, and targeted intervention in underperforming areas contributed to rapid improvements in attainment, particularly at secondary level. By the end of the programme, London had moved from being one of the weakest regions educationally to one of the strongest.

The capital has also benefited from its ability to attract teaching talent. Higher wages, career opportunities, and the concentration of training programmes such as Teach First have helped channel early-career teachers into disadvantaged schools. London’s dense transport network and school choice landscape further widen access to high-performing institutions and post-16 pathways.

Demographic change has played a role as well. Gentrification has altered school intakes in many boroughs, while immigration has increased diversity. However, research consistently shows that London’s advantage persists even when controlling for ethnicity and background. White pupils in London also outperform their peers elsewhere, indicating that demographics alone cannot explain the scale of the gap.

The London effect as context dependent

To establish that London’s stronger outcomes for disadvantaged pupils are not simply a statistical artefact of population composition, it is necessary to look at the literature on the so-called London effect. A major literature review by Macdougall and Lupton (2018) synthesises evidence showing that London’s comparative advantage cannot be explained by demographic composition alone. Instead, the review identifies institutional factors, including school improvement programmes, patterns of resource allocation, and local authority leadership, as central to understanding London’s performance.

Importantly, the authors frame the London effect as context dependent rather than merely demographic. This means that pupils from similar backgrounds tend to achieve better outcomes in London because of the institutional and policy environment in which they are educated, not simply because of who they are. The relevance of this finding is not that London has eliminated disadvantage or reduced structural barriers, but that place-based systems shape how disadvantage is addressed and translated into outcomes.

Free School Meals as an administrative measure

The Opportunity Index measures social mobility using outcomes for pupils who were eligible for Free School Meals at age 16. FSM is a widely used proxy for disadvantage and remains essential for identifying pupils who require additional support. However, FSM is not a direct measure of poverty. It is an administrative status shaped by eligibility thresholds, registration processes, and institutional practice.

Research from the Education Policy Institute and the Nuffield Foundation shows that eligibility for Free School Meals and the likelihood of being registered vary substantially by place and over time. This means that children with similar levels of underlying poverty are not equally likely to be recorded as FSM eligible in different regions. Yet in analyses of social mobility, FSM status is often treated as a fixed and comparable marker of disadvantage. When registration depends on local administrative practices and institutional capacity, this assumption breaks down. As a result, comparisons of outcomes between FSM pupils across regions risk conflating differences in opportunity with differences in how disadvantage is identified and recorded.

How FSM operates differently in London

In London, FSM administration is routinised. Schools deal with large FSM cohorts and have established processes for identifying eligible pupils. Local authorities are more likely to conduct periodic eligibility checks and support schools in registering families. Interaction with public institutions is common across income groups, making registration a routine administrative step rather than an exceptional act.

By contrast, in many non-London areas, FSM registration relies more heavily on parents initiating applications and navigating systems themselves. Schools often work with smaller FSM populations and have less administrative capacity dedicated to entitlement identification. In these contexts, FSM status is more likely to capture a narrower group of pupils experiencing persistent disadvantage.

This difference does not imply that London is less deprived. London has high child poverty rates. Instead, it suggests that FSM registration reflects different mixes of circumstances across places, shaped by income volatility, residential mobility, and administrative practice.

Universal provision and reduced friction

Recent policy decisions have further altered how FSM functions in London. Since 2023, all state primary school pupils in London have been offered free school meals through mayoral funding. This universal provision does not remove the need for means-tested FSM registration for funding purposes, but it decouples meal access from eligibility.

As a result, schools can encourage registration by framing it as a mechanism to secure resources rather than a condition for receiving food. This reduces stigma and administrative burden, while allowing local authorities to identify eligible pupils more effectively. The consequence is both substantive and methodological. More children receive support, and FSM data more accurately reflects the population entitled to additional resources.

What London’s advantage really shows

London’s position at the top of the Opportunity Index does reflect genuine strengths in schooling, labour markets, and institutional capacity. But it also reflects something more fundamental. London is better at finding disadvantage and acting on it.

FSM remains an essential indicator. Without it, disadvantage becomes invisible to policy. But the London case shows that how FSM is administered shapes who is counted, who receives support, and how opportunity is ultimately measured.

If London’s success tells us anything, it is that social mobility begins with identification. Reducing administrative friction, routinising support, and separating help from stigma do not just improve lives. They also change what our data shows us about who is being left behind.

In that sense, London’s real advantage is not that it has solved disadvantage, but that it has built systems that are better at seeing it.