KENA BETANCUR / AFP
Demonstration against the American military intervention in Venezuela in front of the Metropolitan Detention Center, where Nicolas Maduro is, in Brooklyn, New York, January 4, 2026.
The Trump administration’s justifications fail to convince. The capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, brought by force to the United States, presented by the Trump administration as a “police operation”raises many questions about its legality. Two main points are raised by the Democratic opposition and experts: the violation of the UN Charter and the lack of authorization from Congress to launch this operation.
US forces captured Nicolás Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores on Saturday and forcibly took them to New York to face justice. They are targeted, along with four other people, by a new indictment for “narcoterrorism” and importation of cocaine into the United States. The Venezuelan president will appear Monday at noon before a judge in New York.
“Basically, this is the arrest of two fugitives wanted by American justice and the Ministry of War (the Pentagon, Editor’s note) supported the Ministry of Justice in this mission”summed up US Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Saturday during a press conference with President Donald Trump. He argued that it was therefore not a military action requiring congressional authorization.
And “act of war”
“This authorization was not necessary because it is not an invasion. We did not occupy a country”he insisted on ABC on Sunday. “It’s a police operation”continued the head of diplomacy, stressing that Nicolás Maduro had been apprehended by agents of the FBI, the American federal police.
But elected Democrats vigorously contest this reading of events. “It was not just an anti-narcotics operation, it was an act of war”said Hakeem Jeffries, the leader of the Democrats in the House of Representatives, Sunday on NBC.
“They entered Venezuela, bombed both civilian and military sites. And it’s a violation of the law to do what they did without getting authorization from Congress.”added his counterpart in the Senate, Chuck Schumer.
Violation of the United Nations Charter
“This arrest is problematic” in other ways, believes Barbara McQuade, former federal prosecutor and law professor at the University of Michigan. “Normally, the procedure to arrest someone who does not live in the United States is to go through an extradition request”she explained on MS-Now (formerly MSNBC). “Instead, we are witnessing a clandestine military arrest”.
“The problem with this arrest is that it violates the United Nations charter”of which the United States is a signatory, added Barbara McQuade, recalling that the President of the United States is constitutionally obliged to ensure the execution of the laws: “Violating the Charter of the United Nations is therefore a violation of the Constitution”.
In fact, Article 2, paragraph 4, of the United Nations Charter prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of a State. An intervention is only legal if it is authorized by the UN Security Council, carried out in self-defense, or with the consent of the local government.
The conditions in which Nicolás Maduro was brought before American justice could allow his lawyers to request the annulment of the procedure, in particular because of the criminal immunity due to his status as head of state, she clarified, saying she expected “months of defense appeals”.
Panama precedent
On the other hand, Bill Barr, a former Justice Minister during Donald Trump’s first term, said he “very confident” in the fact that Nicolás Maduro would be condemned as had been the strongman of Panama, General Manuel Noriega, for drug trafficking, on the basis of the same “legal arguments”.
Manuel Noriega had been brought to the United States after a military operation, “very similar situation”said on Fox News Bill Barr, author of the legal opinion justifying the invasion of Panama in 1989. He assured that the president could order the FBI to arrest suspects abroad even if this constitutes a violation of international law and the sovereignty of other states.
“Congress has given the president a gargantuan military force with very few constraints and is incapable of controlling what the president does with it”while justice avoids addressing these questions, writes Jack Goldsmith, a former senior official at the Department of Justice, on his blog.
In practice, the only applicable rules therefore arise from precedents and legal opinions requested by the executive itself. “It would not be terribly difficult for the Justice Department to draft an opinion supporting the invasion of Venezuela, even if this military action violates the UN Charter”he concludes.
