Why Trump’s Venezuela Operation Breaks Legal Norms and Risks Global Consequences

The formal trappings of law now await Nicolás Maduro at the courthouse on 500 Pearl Street in lower Manhattan: an indictment, prosecutors and defense counsel, a judge, and legal briefs. If the prosecution proceeds effectively, a conviction and a substantial prison term are possible.

But those courtroom rituals should not distract from how the case began. The Trump administration’s operation to seize Venezuela’s leader — which critics and many legal experts describe as an illegal abduction of a head of state from a country that has not engaged in hostilities with the United States — unfolded without clear public justification, without meaningful consultation with Congress, and without a coherent plan for governing Venezuela afterward.

Domestic And International Law Concerns

The U.S. Constitution vests the power to declare war in Congress, and federal statutes limit unilateral military deployments without congressional authorization. By proceeding without a visible attempt to secure congressional approval, the administration has overridden those domestic constraints. At the same time, international legal norms designed to prevent forceful regime change have been damaged, with potentially far-reaching consequences.

“The action against Venezuela is manifestly illegal under international law, and cannot plausibly or by any reasonable standard be characterized as a law enforcement action,” said Philippe Sands, an expert on international law.

“What now is the plan?” Sands continued. “One need only think of Nicaragua, Afghanistan and Libya…to imagine what the consequences might be, and the encouragement it will surely give to others to act with such brazen disregard for the international legal norms that bind us all.”

How The Administration Framed Its Case — And Why Critics Reject It

For months the administration publicly celebrated lethal boat strikes against alleged drug traffickers and warned that it would topple the Maduro government. Critics point to a troubling pattern: a “double tap” strike that reportedly killed survivors clinging to a vessel, a public narrative claiming each strike prevented tens of thousands of drug deaths, and an overall strategy that prioritized results over legal and ethical justification.

Journalistic reporting suggests that officials coalesced around three rationales for ousting Maduro — oil, drugs, and migration — but those motives do not supply a lawful or persuasive justification for seizing a foreign head of state. The credibility of the drug-trafficking rationale is further undermined by the administration’s recent pardon of former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernández, who had been serving a 45-year sentence for trafficking large quantities of cocaine into the U.S.

Comparisons With Past Interventions

Defenders of the operation have tried to draw analogies to prior presidential actions: the strike that killed Qasem Soleimani, NATO’s Libya campaign under President Obama, NATO action in Yugoslavia under President Clinton, and the 1989 Panama invasion that led to Manuel Noriega’s arrest. Legal scholars say these comparisons are imperfect.

“This pushes precedents very far, but we don’t know just how far yet, because so many facts and plans are unclear,” said Matthew Waxman, a Columbia Law School professor and former Bush administration official.

Key distinctions matter: Soleimani was a senior military commander, not a head of state, and previous interventions often relied on international coalitions or humanitarian rationales. The Panama episode most closely resembles the Venezuela case, but even then the U.S. helped install an opposition leader who had won an election — and scholars agree that the Panama operation strained constitutional and international law.

Political Failures That Enabled Executive Overreach

This episode also reflects broader political dynamics in Washington. Congress — and particularly the Republican majority — largely failed to assert its constitutional prerogatives. Some members who initially raised objections quickly retreated. Meanwhile, partisan distractions and strategic missteps on the Democratic side reduced effective opposition to the administration’s course.

The Supreme Court’s recent decisions have also reshaped the political landscape. A ruling that effectively narrowed accountability for certain presidential actions has arguably emboldened the president and reduced legal checks on executive power.

What Comes Next

The consequences of the Venezuela operation remain uncertain. On the ground, outcomes could range from a quick transfer of authority to prolonged instability or occupation — scenarios that would magnify constitutional and international-law problems. Globally, the operation risks encouraging other states to flout legal norms.

Short-term institutional checks are limited. The public’s clearest avenue for reasserting constraints on executive power is through elections: changing the composition of Congress could reinvigorate legislative oversight and restrain further unilateral actions. The coming months will test whether political accountability can catch up with the legal and geopolitical fallout.

Bottom line: The Venezuela operation raises acute legal, moral, and geopolitical questions. Even if legal fights unfold in Manhattan’s courts, the larger debate about presidential power, congressional responsibility, and international order has only just begun.