In the early hours of January 3, 2026, the United States conducted what President Donald Trump called one of the most stunning displays of American military might since World War II.
A coordinated assault by air, land, and sea forces struck military installations across Venezuela’s capital, Caracas, resulting in the capture of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores.
By Saturday morning, Maduro was aboard the USS Iwo Jima, and by evening, he had been transferred to Stewart Air National Guard Base in New York to face drug trafficking charges.
The operation, which Trump justified as necessary to stop drug trafficking and reclaim allegedly stolen oil assets, has ignited a global firestorm over the legality, morality, and wisdom of unilateral military intervention.
As the UN Security Council prepares for an emergency session and world leaders scramble to respond, one question dominates: Has the United States just fundamentally undermined the international order it spent decades building?
The Trump administration’s justification for the Venezuela operation rests on three pillars.
First, Maduro and his wife face charges in the Southern District of New York related to narcotics trafficking, with an indictment alleging that since 1999, they partnered with international drug trafficking organizations to transport thousands of tons of cocaine into the United States.
Second, Trump and Vice President JD Vance have claimed that Venezuela “stole” oil and assets from the United States when the government nationalized them in the late 1990s.
During his Mar-a-Lago press conference, Trump announced plans to send major US oil companies to Venezuela to “spend billions of dollars, fix the badly broken infrastructure” and “start making money for the country.”
Third, the administration frames the operation not as an act of war but as a law enforcement action with military support, something the President claims falls within his “inherent constitutional authority.”
Secretary of State Marco Rubio elaborated on this justification in interviews, characterizing Maduro as “a fugitive of American justice” and describing the operation as advancing US national interests by stopping drug trafficking and preventing Venezuela from cooperating with Russia, China, Cuba, and Iran.
Legal experts, UN officials, and countries around the globe have been swift and nearly unanimous in their assessment: the US operation violates fundamental principles of international law.
International law expert Sarah Heathcote of Australian National University has stated bluntly that the strikes constitute a breach of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which prohibits the use of force against another state.
For such an intervention to be lawful, it would require UN Security Council authorization, justification as self-defense against an ongoing or imminent attack, or consent from Venezuela’s lawful government. None of these conditions were met.
UN Secretary-General António Guterres expressed deep alarm, stating that the developments constitute a dangerous precedent and emphasizing his concern that international law has not been respected.
The UN’s Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Venezuela warned that alleged violations by Maduro’s regime do not justify a military intervention that breaches international law.
The Trump administration’s attempt to frame the operation as a law enforcement action rather than a use of force is, in the view of most international law scholars, legally dubious at best.
As Heathcote notes, this framing appears designed to obfuscate the need for Congressional authorization under US domestic law as much as it attempts to sidestep international legal constraints.
The international reaction to the operation has revealed deep divisions, both geopolitical and ideological.
Russia and China issued strong condemnations. China’s Foreign Ministry stated it was deeply shocked by what it called Washington’s blatant use of force against a sovereign state, while Russia called the action an unacceptable assault on Venezuela’s sovereignty.
European leaders have responded with notable caution. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz acknowledged the complexity of the operation’s legality while stressing that international law must apply.
EU High Representative Kaja Kallas called for restraint and emphasized that the principles of international law and the UN Charter must be respected, though she stopped short of directly criticizing the US action.
French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot was more forthright, stating that the operation violates the principle of not resorting to force that underpins international law.
UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer struck a measured tone, stating that while Britain sheds no tears over the end of Maduro’s regime, he would discuss the evolving situation with US counterparts and seek a peaceful transition reflecting the will of the Venezuelan people.
Latin American responses have been particularly divided. Colombian President Gustavo Petro condemned the operation as aggression against the sovereignty of Venezuela and Latin America, calling for an emergency UN Security Council meeting and deploying forces to Colombia’s border in preparation for a potential refugee crisis.
Cuba’s President Miguel Díaz-Canel labeled the US action as state terrorism.
In contrast, right-leaning Latin American leaders offered support.
Argentine President Javier Milei hailed Maduro’s capture as a victory for freedom, while El Salvador’s Nayib Bukele and Ecuador’s Daniel Noboa expressed support for the operation.
Beyond the legal debates, serious questions remain about the wisdom and consequences of the operation.
Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado, recently awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, has called for Edmundo González—widely regarded as the legitimate winner of the 2024 Venezuelan elections,to assume the presidency.
However, the situation on the ground remains volatile.
Trump’s declaration that the United States would “run” Venezuela until a proper transition could take place raised alarm bells worldwide.
Though Secretary of State Rubio later attempted to walk back this claim, insisting the US has no intention of long-term occupation, the initial statement evoked uncomfortable parallels to failed nation-building efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The humanitarian implications are equally concerning. Caracas remains tense, with businesses closed and streets unusually quiet.
The FAA’s temporary closure of airspace throughout the Eastern Caribbean stranded tens of thousands of travelers, requiring airlines to scramble to add dozens of extra flights.
More critically, the operation has already claimed lives—Trump himself acknowledged that some US personnel were wounded, though he claimed no deaths.
The economic dimension cannot be ignored. Venezuela possesses the world’s largest proven oil reserves, with experts estimating some 303 billion barrels.
However, years of mismanagement, corruption, and sanctions have left the country’s oil infrastructure in shambles.
The Orinoco Belt, where much of this oil is concentrated, consists of ultra-heavy crude that requires significant processing.
Whether US oil companies will actually invest the billions needed to rehabilitate this infrastructure, and on what terms, remains unclear.
Perhaps the most troubling aspect of this operation is what it signals for the future of international relations.
If the world’s most powerful nation can unilaterally decide that another country’s leader is a criminal, launch a military operation to capture him, and then claim the right to temporarily run that country, what prevents other powers from doing the same?
Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico captured this concern when he stated that the operation provides further evidence of the breakdown of the world order created after World War II, noting that military force is now used without UN Security Council mandate by those who are powerful enough to advance their own interests.
This is not mere abstract theorizing. Russia has already justified its actions in Ukraine by appealing,however spuriously, to international law exceptions to the prohibition on armed aggression.
China has taken careful note of the US operation as it considers its own territorial ambitions in Taiwan and the South China Sea.
What message does the Venezuela operation send to these and other powers?
UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk emphasized that the protection of the Venezuelan people is paramount and must guide any further action.
But protection from whom? From Maduro’s authoritarian regime, which has documented patterns of extrajudicial killings, arbitrary detention, and torture?
Or from a unilateral US military intervention that, whatever its justifications, sets a precedent that other powers might eagerly exploit?
Within the United States, reaction has largely split along partisan lines.
Republican leaders in Congress have praised the operation, with Senate Majority Leader John Thune expressing support and anticipating further briefings when lawmakers return to Washington.
However, the fact that the Trump administration conducted this operation without prior Congressional notification has raised serious constitutional questions.
Democratic Representative Joaquin Castro, ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, told NPR that lawmakers received no advance notice.
Even Senator Mark Warner, vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, expressed concerns about the precedent the operation has set.
The administration’s claim of “inherent constitutional authority” to conduct what amounts to a war of regime change without Congressional authorization is, at minimum, constitutionally questionable and represents a significant expansion of executive power in matters of war and peace.
As the UN Security Council convenes and Venezuela’s interim president Delcy Rodríguez denounces US control while promising that the country will remain free, several critical questions demand answers.
First, what exactly is the plan for Venezuela’s political transition? Trump’s vague statement about running the country “until such time as we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition” provides no clarity about timeline, objectives, or metrics for success.
History suggests that open-ended commitments to foreign occupation rarely end well.
Second, how will the United States respond to the nearly universal international consensus that its actions violated international law? Will it simply dismiss these concerns as the complaints of the weak against the strong? Or will it engage in good faith diplomatic efforts to address the legitimate questions being raised about the precedent being set?
Third, what happens if Maduro loyalists mount an insurgency? What if other Venezuelan military leaders refuse to cooperate with US directives?
What if neighboring countries, particularly those that have condemned the operation, provide safe haven or support to opposition elements?
The United States could find itself drawn into a protracted occupation far more costly in lives and treasure than the initial operation.
Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, what will be the cumulative effect of this operation on global stability and the rules-based international order?
If international law can be set aside whenever a powerful nation decides it has sufficient justification, then international law has no meaning.
Maduro was, by nearly all accounts, an authoritarian leader who presided over economic collapse, widespread human rights abuses, and the exodus of millions of Venezuelans.
Few will mourn his removal from power, and many Venezuelans will celebrate his downfall.
But the manner of his removal matters immensely. The principle of sovereignty, however imperfect, has been the foundation of international order since the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648.
The UN Charter, forged in the aftermath of World War II, was designed precisely to prevent powerful nations from unilaterally deciding which governments they would tolerate and which they would overthrow by force.
The United States has now joined the long list of nations that have chosen might over right when it suited their interests.
The question is not whether Maduro deserved his fate, many would argue he did.
The question is whether American exceptionalism justifies exceptional violations of the very international norms the United States once championed.
As Slovak Prime Minister Fico observed, we are witnessing the breakdown of the post-war international order.
What replaces it, a world where international law still has meaning, or a return to pure power politics where the strong do what they will and the weak suffer what they must, may well depend on how the international community responds to this moment.
The United States has made its choice. Now the rest of the world must make theirs.
