The UN Security Council held an emergency session after reports that US forces seized Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, an action many diplomats said could set a dangerous international-law precedent. Venezuela, Cuba, Russia, China and several EU-aligned states condemned the operation as a violation of sovereignty, while Mexico and Denmark urged the council to avoid double standards. The US defended the move as a targeted law‑enforcement action tied to drug-trafficking indictments; however, officials noted the allegations have not been publicly proven. Council members warned the episode risks weakening norms that limit the use of force across borders.
UN Security Council Alarms Over Reported US Seizure Of Maduro: Allies Join Critics
Venezuela's UN ambassador, Samuel Moncada, speaks during a meeting of the Security Council on Monday, January 5, 2026, at UN headquarters in New York City [Frank Franklin II/AP]
Members of the United Nations Security Council convened an emergency session in New York after reports that US special forces had seized Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife — an action that diplomats warned could set a dangerous precedent for international law.
Diplomatic Backlash
Venezuela’s UN ambassador, Samuel Moncada, denounced the operation as "an illegitimate armed attack lacking any legal justification," a stance echoed by Cuba, Colombia and permanent UNSC members Russia and China. Speakers warned that unilateral use of force beyond a state's territory threatens sovereignty and the international legal order.
Cuba: "[The US] imposes the application of its laws outside its own territory and far from its coasts, where it has no jurisdiction, using assaults and the appropriation of assets." — Ernesto Soberon Guzman
Russia: "The US cannot proclaim itself a supreme judge with the right to invade any country, label culprits and enforce punishments irrespective of international law, sovereignty and non-intervention." — Vassily Nebenzia
Unusual Criticism From Allies
Notably, several U.S. partners also voiced concern. Mexico’s ambassador, Héctor Vasconcelos, urged the council to "act decisively and without double standards," saying sovereign peoples should determine their own destinies — remarks made only days after President Trump warned "something will have to be done about Mexico" in the wake of Maduro’s capture. Denmark’s ambassador, Christina Markus Lassen, reminded the council that "the inviolability of borders is not up for negotiation," implicitly referencing past US comments about Greenland.
France, which initially offered a different tone, criticized the operation at the session. Jay Dharmadhikari, France’s deputy ambassador, said the capture "ran counter to the principle of peaceful dispute resolution and to the prohibition on the use of force." Representatives from Latvia and the United Kingdom highlighted human-rights abuses and organized crime under Maduro’s rule, with Latvia calling the situation a "grave threat to the security of the region and the world." The UK ambassador described Maduro’s claim to power as fraudulent.
US Position And Legal Context
The US ambassador, Mike Waltz, described the action as "a surgical law enforcement operation facilitated by the US military" against two fugitives indicted in American courts. The Venezuelan couple were reportedly due to face drug-trafficking charges in a US federal court.
The White House defended recent air strikes and related operations near Venezuela as necessary to protect US national security, citing allegations — not yet publicly proven — that Maduro supported so-called "narcoterrorist" cartels. Diplomats at the UNSC stressed that allegations do not remove the need to respect international law and sovereignty.
Implications
Council members warned that unilateral cross-border seizures risk eroding norms governing the use of force and could encourage reciprocal actions. The emergency session underscored rising tensions between the United States and a broad coalition of critics — including some traditional US partners — over how to hold leaders to account while preserving international legal standards.
