The United States has attacked Venezuela and abducted its president, Nicolás Maduro, and his wife, Cilia Flores de Maduro, the culmination of more than a decade of U.S. attempts to undermine and overturn his authoritarian regime.Footnote ¹ The raid, during which approximately seventy-five to eighty Venezuelans and Cubans were killed and six U.S. servicemembers were injured,Footnote ² followed a months-long U.S. military build-up in the CaribbeanFootnote ³ that had, until then, involved: lethal targeting of alleged narcotics trafficking vessels;Footnote ⁴ a blockade on sanctioned oil tankers arriving or departing Venezuela;Footnote ⁵ the seizure of tankers;Footnote ⁶ a covert strike on a Venezuelan port;Footnote ⁷ and repeated threats to use force against Venezuela.Footnote ⁸ General Dan Caine, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, described the operation as “an apprehension mission … to bring to justice two indicted persons,” done “on the order of the president” and “in support of a request from the Department of Justice.”Footnote ⁹ Maduro and Flores, together with others, are the subjects of a narcotics trafficking indictment in the Southern District of New York.Footnote ¹⁰ Announcing the operation’s success, President Donald J. Trump said: “we are going to run [Venezuela] until such time as we can do a safe, proper, and judicious transition.”Footnote ¹¹ The United States according to President Trump, as well as Energy Secretary Chris Wright, will also “control” Venezuela’s oil “indefinitely” and sell it “to benefit the people of Venezuela and the United States.”Footnote ¹² The U.S. action unabashedly breaches fundamental rules of international law and thereby establishes a precedent for other states to do the same.

The United States characterized the raid on Caracas as a law enforcement operation undertaken with the support of the military. In a letter informing Congress of the strikes, the president explained that the Southern District had issued arrest warrants for Maduro and Flores and that the Justice Department “anticipated that [they both] would resist capture by all available means, including by resorting to extreme violence.”Footnote ¹³ Consequently, he wrote, “United States military forces were … necessary to help effectuate their apprehension, arrest, and transportation to the United States for criminal prosecution.”Footnote ¹⁴ At the Security Council, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations Mike Waltz likewise described the U.S. action as a “law enforcement operation facilitated by the U.S. military against two indicted fugitives of American justice.”Footnote ¹⁵ Administration officials discussing the operation have also mentioned numerous long-standing grievances with Maduro and Venezuela—threats from Venezuelan criminal organizations such as Tren de Aragua that are “conducting irregular warfare and undertaking hostile actions” against the United States; narcotics trafficking into the United States through Venezuela that is allegedly killing hundreds of thousands of Americans; the migration of millions of Venezuelans to neighboring states and the United States; the illegitimacy of the Maduro government due to the rigging of elections; human rights abuses by the regime; Venezuela’s association with Cuba, Iran, Hezbollah, and other “malign actors” and U.S. adversaries; and Venezuela’s taking of investments made by U.S. oil companies without paying sufficient compensation—and these issues may have motivated some or all of those involved in the decision to seize Maduro.Footnote ¹⁶ Nonetheless, the specific public justification for the incursion into Venezuela and the rendition of Maduro and Flores has consistently been the need to bring both to the United States to stand trial on federal charges.

States, though, are not permitted under international law to exercise law enforcement authority or use forcible measures in the territory of another state, absent the applicability of a recognized exception to these prohibitions. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter provides that “[a]ll Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”Footnote ¹⁷ Undoubtedly, the operation to abduct Maduro and Flores was a use of force (the United States has acknowledged as much), and thus it was presumptively barred.Footnote ¹⁸ Such an action would be permissible if it were authorized by the Security Council, conducted in self-defense, or consented to by the territorial state.Footnote ¹⁹ But the Council did not authorize the U.S. attack on Venezuela, there were no circumstances that actuated for the United States the right of self-defense, and Venezuela did not provide its consent.Footnote ²⁰ Consequently, the U.S. operation violated Article 2(4). The removal of Maduro also violated Article 2(7)’s prohibition on “interven[ing] in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state,” as it involved the coercive removal of a sitting head of state.Footnote ²¹ The sending of U.S. governmental agents to Caracas to enforce U.S. law (the assertion of enforcement jurisdiction) also violated Venezuela’s sovereignty, its right to exclusively exercise governmental power within its territory. This is all textbook international law and accords with the United States’ longstanding position that law enforcement actions in another state are not exempt from international law’s rules prohibiting the use of force, interference in a state’s internal affairs, and the exercise of governmental authority in the territory of another state.Footnote ²²

In keeping with the Trump administration’s general disengagement with international legal discourse, it has not provided an international law rationale for its action. The closest the administration has come has been to note the operation’s “similar[ity]” to the U.S. military incursion into Panama in 1989 to arrest Manuel Noriega.Footnote ²³ In the Noriega matter, the United States claimed that its actions conformed to Article 51 since Noriega declared war against the United States and he “carr[ied] out acts of war.”Footnote ²⁴ The United States also noted that its “action in Panama [was] approved, applauded and welcomed by the democratically elected Government of Panama,” suggesting that state’s consent.Footnote ²⁵ These international law justifications were highly contested at the time.Footnote ²⁶ Still, none of the rationales relied upon by the United States to justify the taking of Noriega applies to the abduction of Maduro. The administration’s references to the Noriega example do not acknowledge these distinctions.

Because the administration has not provided any public explication of its international legal reasoning, it is unclear what consideration, if any, it gave to the United States’ international legal obligations as it considered its plan to forcibly remove Maduro. We know, however, that the Office of Legal Counsel advised the legal advisor to the National Security Council that “[i]nternational law … does not restrict the President as a matter of domestic law,” at least “when it comes to extraordinary rendition.”Footnote ²⁷ Given this advice, the operation’s unmistakable violations of international law, and the absence of any attempt to justify those violations, it is reasonable to conclude that the administration was not concerned with adhering to international law’s rules or the systemic repercussions of the United States’ breach of those rules. This too would be in keeping with the administration’s approach during its first year.Footnote ²⁸

Congressional reaction to Maduro’s rendition was largely divided along party lines. Continuing its practice of deferring to the president,Footnote ²⁹ Republicans supported the operation and were unconcerned with the lack of prior congressional consultation despite the statutory requirement that the intelligence committees or the “Gang of Eight” be notified of covert actions in advance.Footnote ³⁰ The Republican Senate Majority Leader, John Thune, said that Maduro’s apprehension was “an important first step to bring him to justice for the drug crimes for which he has been indicted in the United States.”Footnote ³¹ Republicans also denied that congressional authorization for the operation was required. Republican Speaker of the House Mike Johnson denied that the United States was at war with Venezuela or engaged in hostilities: “We are not at war. We do not have U.S. armed forces in Venezuela and we are not occupying that country,” he said.Footnote ³² Senator Jack Reed, a Democrat and ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said that “President Trump waged war on a foreign nation without authorization, without notification, and without any explanation to the American people…. This has been a profound constitutional failure. Congress—not the President—has the sole power to authorize war.”Footnote ³³ Senate Democrats were able to secure enough Republican votes to move forward consideration of a joint resolution that would have “direct[ed] the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities within or against Venezuela that have not been authorized by Congress.”Footnote ³⁴ But Republicans subsequently blocked that measure, with two Republican senators (Josh Hawley and Todd Young) reversing their initial support for the resolution under pressure from the president.Footnote ³⁵ A similar resolution was defeated in the House of Representatives on a tie vote.Footnote ³⁶

The U.S. action has been widely criticized internationally, though some states and regional organizations have equivocated, apparently out of concern for U.S. retaliation, and some have supported Maduro’s removal. UN Secretary-General António Guterres warned that “these developments constitute a dangerous precedent,” and he expressed his “deep[] concern[]that the rules of international law have not been respected.”Footnote ³⁷ China “strongly condemn[ed] the U.S.’s blatant use of force against a sovereign state and action against its president,” noting that “[s]uch hegemonic acts of the U.S. seriously violate international law and Venezuela’s sovereignty, and threaten peace and security in Latin America and the Caribbean region.”Footnote ³⁸ In a joint statement, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Uruguay, and Spain announced their “rejection of the military actions carried out unilaterally on Venezuelan territory,” pointing out that those actions “contravene fundamental principles of international law, particularly the prohibition of the use and threat of force, and respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of States, enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations.”Footnote ³⁹

More tepid criticisms came from the African Union (AU), the European Union (EU), and some states. The AU, without naming the United States, “reaffirm[ed] its steadfast commitment to the fundamental principles of international law, including respect for the sovereignty of States, their territorial integrity, and the right of peoples to self-determination.”Footnote ⁴⁰ The EU similarly “recall[ed] that … the principles of international law and the UN Charter must be upheld,” but it went on to point out that Maduro “lack[ed] the legitimacy of a democratically elected president” and that it “shares the priority of combating transnational organised crime and drug trafficking.”Footnote ⁴¹ German Chancellor Friedrich Merz hedged, stating that “[t]he legal assessment of the U.S. intervention is complex and requires careful consideration. International law remains the guiding framework.”Footnote ⁴² British Prime Minister Keir Starmer was similarly circumspect.Footnote ⁴³ Some other states, particular those with close relations with President Trump, approved the operation.Footnote ⁴⁴

The Maduro incident confirms, if confirmation were necessary, that violations of international law are a feature, not a bug, of the second Trump administration.Footnote ⁴⁵ Threats to use force, uses of force, interference in the internal affairs of other states, and violations of territorial sovereignty are now part of the foreign policy toolkit of the United States. Not satisfied with controlling Venezuela and the taking of its oil, the president has rekindled his interest in acquiring Greenland, saying: “I would like to make a deal the easy way, but if we don’t do it the easy way we’re going to do it the hard way.”Footnote ⁴⁶ Secretary of State Marco Rubio has his sights set on Cuba, remarking that its government is in “a lot of trouble.”Footnote ⁴⁷ U.S. breaches of international law, like all state practice, are signals to other states regarding the value and content of the rules. We will see whether other states follow U.S. practice.