Categorie: America

A Dark Day for Diplomacy: Why the U.S. Assault on Venezuela Defies International Law

Early this morning, the world woke up to the news of a massive military operation in Caracas. U.S. President Donald Trump has confirmed that American special forces, reportedly including Delta Force, launched a “large-scale strike” on Venezuela, capturing President Nicolás Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores and flying them out of the country.
While political opinions on the Maduro administration vary wildly, the legal reality of this morning’s actions is stark. From a legal standpoint, this operation represents one of the most significant challenges to the established international order in decades. Here is why this is a grave violation of international law.

Violation of Territorial Sovereignty

The cornerstone of the United Nations Charter is the principle of territorial integrity. No state has the right to intervene in the internal affairs of another, let alone launch an unprovoked military strike on a sovereign nation’s capital. By deploying low-flying aircraft and conducting strikes on military installations like La Carlota and Fuerte Tiuna, the U.S. has bypassed the UN Security Council entirely, making this an act of unilateral aggression.

The Illegal Capture of a Sitting Head of State

Under established international norms, sitting heads of state enjoy diplomatic immunity. Even when a leader is accused of crimes—such as the drug trafficking charges cited by U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi—the “capture” and removal of a president by a foreign military is widely viewed as a kidnapping or a “regime change” operation, not a legal extradition.
This sets a dangerous precedent: if one nation can unilaterally decide a foreign leader is a “criminal” and use special forces to abduct them, the entire framework of sovereign immunity collapses.

Lack of a “Self-Defense” Justification

International law allows for the use of force only in two scenarios:
* Authorization by the UN Security Council.
* Self-defense against an armed attack (Article 51).

The U.S. has not provided evidence of an “imminent attack” from Venezuela. Claims of “narcoterrorism” or regional stability, while serious, do not legally justify a full-scale military invasion or the abduction of a foreign leader under the current international legal framework.

Human Cost and Civilian Risks

Reports are already emerging of civilian casualties and widespread power outages in Caracas. International humanitarian law (the laws of war) requires that any military action must be proportionate and must distinguish between military and civilian targets. A nighttime raid in a densely populated capital city, accompanied by airstrikes, inherently risks the lives of millions of non-combatants.

The Precedent of 1989

Many analysts are drawing parallels to the 1989 U.S. invasion of Panama to capture Manuel Noriega. However, the world in 2026 is a different place. With the UN Secretary-General already expressing “deep alarm” and nations like Russia and Mexico condemning the “assault on sovereignty,” the U.S. may find itself more diplomatically isolated than ever before.

Conclusion

Might does not make right. Regardless of one’s view of Maduro’s domestic policies, the circumvention of international law threatens the safety of all nations. If the “rules-based order” only applies when it is convenient for the powerful, then the rules effectively cease to exist.

The Irony of the ‘Weaponization’ Claim: Is Trump Doing Exactly What He Decried?

For years, Donald Trump and his allies have loudly claimed that he was the victim of a coordinated campaign to undermine him—a campaign that allegedly “weaponized” the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and other federal agencies for political ends. This narrative framed his legal troubles as an unprecedented partisan attack, not a matter of impartial justice.
Now a profound and disturbing irony is emerging: President Trump appears to be implementing the very tactics he once accused his opponents of using.
The claim of “weaponization” was originally levied against investigations into his conduct, painting career prosecutors and federal agents as politically motivated actors intent on removing him from power. But the current actions of his administration—including those overseen by the DOJ—suggest a direct reversal of the principle of legal independence he demanded.

The Pivot to Retribution

Since returning to the White House, the focus of the administration has notably shifted from upholding the long-standing norm of DOJ independence to, in the view of many critics, actively pursuing political adversaries.
* Targeting of Critics: There are numerous documented instances, including reports of investigations, executive orders, and public pressure, aimed at individuals who have been vocal critics of the President, including former administration officials, political opponents, and their associated organizations.
* Loyalty Over Expertise: Key appointments and reassignments within the federal government, particularly at the DOJ and the FBI, have raised concerns that loyalty to the President is being prioritized over non-partisanship and professional expertise. This is precisely the kind of institutional corruption Trump claimed to be fighting against when he was on the receiving end of investigations.
* The Power of the Presidential Pulpit: Trump has consistently used his platform to openly call for investigations and prosecutions against specific political figures. Such direct pressure from a sitting President on the nation’s chief law enforcement body is widely viewed by legal experts as a violation of democratic norms designed to separate politics from justice.

The Double Standard

The critical issue is one of a blatant double standard. When he was being investigated, the process was a “witch hunt” and a “weaponization of government.” Now, when his administration directs attention toward his political foes, it is framed as “correcting past misconduct” or simply “enforcing the law.”
The danger here is not merely political disagreement; it is a fundamental threat to the rule of law. If the Department of Justice is viewed not as an impartial defender of the law but as a personal instrument of the President—to be used against those who oppose him and shielded from those who support him—the public’s faith in the fairness and independence of the justice system collapses.
In his attempt to dismantle what he called the “Deep State” and a politically weaponized government, the President risks creating exactly what he purported to fear: a system where law enforcement is dictated by political revenge, and the pursuit of justice is subservient to the pursuit of power. The irony is unavoidable, and the implications for American democracy are grave.