Trump captures Maduro and wants to “manage” Venezuela: a legal gamble that defies the world

Congress Bypassed, the Constitution Flouted?

At the heart of the political storm that followed the announcement of the operation, one question keeps coming up: Did Trump have the constitutional right to order this strike without congressional authorization? The answer, according to many legal experts, is clearly no. The U.S. Constitution grants Congress—not the president—the power to declare war. The War Powers Resolution of 1973, adopted in the wake of the Vietnam War, further limits the president’s ability to commit troops to armed conflict without the approval of elected officials. The only exceptions apply to situations where U.S. forces or U.S. citizens face an imminent threat. However, according to most analysts, no such threat existed in Venezuela. Michael Schmitt, a former Air Force lawyer and professor emeritus at the U.S. Naval War College, is categorical: the operation constitutes “a clear violation of international law” and amounts to “a state of war between the United States and Venezuela.”

Senator Marco Rubio, during Saturday’s press conference, justified the lack of notification to Congress by claiming that it could have “compromised” the mission. This position amounts to treating the Constitution and federal laws as optional—which they should never be. Vice President J.D. Vance attempted another line of defense, claiming on X that Trump did not need authorization because Maduro was facing charges in the United States for narco-terrorism: “You can’t escape justice for drug trafficking just because you live in a palace in Caracas.” ” But this argument, as Reason magazine points out, “undermines the concept of separation of powers.” If the executive branch can use its own indictments to justify military strikes abroad, then Congress no longer has any role to play in decisions regarding war.

Mixed Reactions from U.S. Lawmakers

Unsurprisingly, reactions in Congress reflected the usual partisan divides—with a few notable exceptions. On the Republican side, the majority of lawmakers praised the operation. Senator Tom Cotton called Maduro an “illegitimate dictator” running a “vast drug trafficking operation.” House Speaker Mike Johnson called it a “significant step in the fight against drug trafficking.” Senate Majority Leader John Thune said he was “grateful” to the armed forces. However, a few dissenting voices were heard within the Republican ranks. Senator Mike Lee, often critical of the president’s military adventures, initially demanded constitutional explanations—before changing his tone following a call from Rubio. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, who has broken with Trump, posed an awkward question: “Why is it acceptable for America to invade militarily, bomb, and arrest a foreign leader, while Russia is considered evil for invading Ukraine?”

On the Democratic side, condemnation was nearly unanimous. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries demanded an “immediate” briefing and “compelling evidence” justifying “this unauthorized use of military force.” Senator Tim Kaine, in an interview with NPR, was categorical: “These strikes are clearly illegal. They were not authorized by Congress. And the Constitution is clear: the United States does not engage in military action or war without a vote by Congress, except in cases of imminent self-defense.” ” Senator Bernie Sanders spoke of Trump’s “contempt” for “the Constitution and the rule of law,” asserting that “the President of the United States does NOT have the right to unilaterally lead this country into war, even against a corrupt and brutal dictator like Maduro.”

What strikes me is the hypocrisy. Republicans who accused Obama of “weakness” are now applauding an action that would have sparked an outcry had he ordered it. This issue transcends partisan divides. It comes down to whether a president can single-handedly decide to overthrow a government. If so, American democracy has a serious problem.

A Violation of the UN Charter

International law is clear: the U.S. action violates the United Nations Charter. Article 2(4) prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity of another state. The only exceptions are self-defense or authorization by the Security Council. Neither condition was met. UN Secretary-General António Guterres said he was “deeply alarmed,” warning that “these developments set a dangerous precedent.”

Supporters point to the 1989 invasion of Panama against Noriega. Coincidentally, Noriega surrendered on January 3, 1990—36 years to the day before Maduro. But in Panama, the United States had direct interests at stake: the canal and thousands of troops stationed there. The organization WOLA stated that “the return to gunboat diplomacy undermines the United States’ global credibility.”

Panama, Grenada, Iraq… The United States has a long history of interventions outside the legal framework. Each time, the justifications vary—communism, terrorism, drugs—but the pattern remains the same. And each time, the world protests… then moves on. But this time, if we accept that one country can capture the leader of another simply because it has indicted him, then the rules established since 1945 no longer make any sense.

Latin America Rises Up

Reactions in Latin America have been almost unanimously hostile. Colombian President Gustavo Petro called the attack “an act of aggression against Latin America.” Brazilian President Lula da Silva—who had refused to recognize Maduro in 2024—condemned the strikes for having “crossed an unacceptable line.” Cuba, Mexico, and Chile followed suit. Cuban President Díaz-Canel called it “state terrorism.” Russia condemned it as an “act of armed aggression.”

Western allies are embarrassed. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said he wanted to “establish the facts,” noting that “we should all respect international law.” This situation illustrates the double standard: when Russia invades Ukraine, sanctions pour in; when the United States invades Venezuela, it’s “complex.”

I think back to those classes where they explained the Westphalian system to me: every state is master in its own house. Today, Trump didn’t even pretend otherwise. He decided that Maduro had to go, and he made him go. It’s the law of the strongest.

A statement that defies belief

While Maduro’s capture stunned the world, it was the statement that followed that truly sent the situation spiraling into the unknown. “We’re going to run the country,” Trump said during his press conference. “We’re going to manage the country until a safe, appropriate, and sensible transition can take place. ” To run a sovereign country of 28 million people. To decide who will lead it. To exploit its resources. Trump added that he did not want a new leader who would repeat “the same situation we’ve had all these years.” In other words, Washington would decide not only who cannot govern Venezuela, but also who can. When asked who exactly would “manage” the country, Trump mentioned a “team” including Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. No concrete details were provided on how this “management” would work in practice.

Venezuelan Vice President Delcy Rodríguez, who according to the Constitution is supposed to serve as acting president in the event of the president’s absence, adopted a defiant stance. In a speech broadcast from Caracas, she asserted that Maduro remains “the only president of Venezuela” and that Venezuelans “must never again become slaves.” Trump responded that Rubio had spoken with Rodríguez and that she was “essentially willing to do what we think is necessary to make Venezuela great again.” He added that she was “gracious” but that she had “no choice.” Venezuela’s Supreme Court officially transferred power to Rodríguez, citing Maduro’s “material and temporary inability” to perform his duties due to “foreign military aggression.” But the question remains: Who is actually governing Venezuela right now?

Oil: The Real Issue?

Behind the rhetoric about narco-terrorism and democracy, one word keeps coming up: oil. Venezuela has the world’s largest proven oil reserves—more than Saudi Arabia. But years of mismanagement, corruption, and sanctions have caused production to plummet from 3 million barrels per day to about 800,000 today. Trump has made no secret of his intentions: “We’re going to bring in our very large American oil companies—the largest in the world—to invest billions of dollars, repair the crumbling oil infrastructure, and start making money for the country.” He claimed that “the money coming out of the ground is very substantial” and that “managing” Venezuela would cost the United States nothing.

Democratic Senator Mark Kelly reacted with dismay: “The President of the United States has just overthrown a foreign leader and explained to the American people that it’s to take control of a foreign nation’s oil reserves.” ” CNBC oil analysts remain skeptical about the short-term outlook. In their view, U.S. oil companies have not forgotten the expropriations of the 2000s. Investing billions in a country without a stable government or a clear legal framework is a risky gamble. But access to the world’s largest reserves would be “extremely tempting,” especially in a context where climate policies are weakening and demand for oil could start to rise again. The central question remains: Does the world need all that oil? And at what political and human cost?

When I hear Trump talk about “making money,” I think of those old cartoons—Uncle Sam with a cigar and an oil barrel. We were told that was a thing of the past. And yet. A president who announces that he’s going to “manage” a foreign country and exploit its resources. That’s unabashed imperialism.

A Country Plunged into Uncertainty

Venezuela finds itself in an unprecedented political stalemate. A state of emergency has been declared. In some pro-Chávez neighborhoods, militiamen have taken up positions. In others, calm reigns—a strange calm. State television continues its pro-Maduro propaganda. For millions of Venezuelans who have suffered—from hyperinflation, shortages, and repression—the takeover was met with relief. For others, the operation represents a national humiliation. The Supreme Court has officially transferred power to Delcy Rodríguez, citing Maduro’s “material impossibility” to perform his duties.

A crucial question: the hundreds of political prisoners. Among them are activists arrested after the rigged elections of July 2024. María Corina Machado, the opposition leader, remains a key figure. But when asked about her role, Trump replied that she “does not have the support.” Who will lead the country? The UN Fact-Finding Mission has expressed concern about the “risks of further violations” amid this context of “increased volatility.”

I’m thinking of the political prisoners—those men and women thrown into prison for daring to challenge the regime. They’ve waited for years. And now that Maduro has fallen, their fate remains uncertain. Because the fall of a tyrant does not guarantee justice. History is full of betrayed revolutions.

Lessons Not Learned

The history of U.S.-led regime changes offers little cause for optimism. Iraq in 2003 plunged into decades of chaos. Afghanistan has fallen back into the hands of the Taliban. Libya remains a failed state. Each time: a “successful” operation followed by political collapse. Venezuela presents specific challenges: 28 million people, an army partially loyal to Chavism, and more than 7 million refugees who have already fled. How can such a country be “managed” from Washington?

Some see the return of the Monroe Doctrine—that 19th-century policy that regarded the Western Hemisphere as a zone of American influence. Trump referred to the “Don-roe Doctrine.” Secretary of State Rubio warned: “If I were in Havana, I’d be worried.” A thinly veiled threat. Representative Don Bacon, though supportive of the operation, feared that “Russia might use this to justify its actions in Ukraine, or China might use it for Taiwan.”

The Monroe Doctrine. I’d heard of it as a relic—the “banana republics,” the CIA coups. We were told it was over. And now Trump is dusting off this old formula. It’s as if a century of diplomatic progress had just been swept away overnight.

People Take to the Streets

Maduro’s capture has sparked a wave of anti-war protests. Rallies have taken place in more than 100 U.S. cities. In Times Square, thousands of protesters denounced “imperialism” and the “war for oil.” Similar scenes unfolded in Los Angeles, Chicago, and Washington. Representative McGovern said, “He says we don’t have enough for healthcare—but we have unlimited funds for war??”

Internationally, protests took place outside U.S. embassies in Mexico City, Buenos Aires, and São Paulo. The Venezuelan diaspora is divided. For many exiles, this is a long-awaited victory. But others fear that the intervention will exacerbate instability. Caught between euphoria and anxiety, the global Venezuelan community is experiencing a moment of intense emotion—hope and fear inextricably intertwined.

I saw the protesters in Times Square holding their “No War” signs. And I saw Venezuelans in Florida dancing with joy. These two realities coexist. Both are legitimate. Americans who fear another war are right. Venezuelans who have suffered are right to rejoice. The truth is complex.

Venezuela Without Maduro: Chaos or Renewal?

The big question now is what will become of Venezuela in the weeks and months ahead. The country is facing a humanitarian crisis of catastrophic proportions: hyperinflation, food and medicine shortages, a collapsing healthcare system, and crumbling infrastructure. More than 7 million people have fled the country over the past decade—one of the largest exoduses in recent history. Institutions are corrupt or nonexistent. The military, infiltrated by drug trafficking and Chavism, is divided. Public services are barely functioning. Rebuilding a functional state under these conditions is a Herculean challenge—with or without a U.S. presence. Possible scenarios range from best-case to worst-case. In the best-case scenario, a negotiated transition leads to the emergence of a government of national unity, free elections are held, international aid pours in, and Venezuela begins a slow reconstruction.

In the worst-case scenario, the vacuum left by Maduro is filled by violent power struggles between Chavista, criminal, and opportunistic factions, plunging the country into a smoldering civil war or widespread chaos. Between these two extremes, countless variations are possible. What is certain is that the U.S. presence—in whatever form that may take, no one knows—will be a determining factor. How Washington handles the coming weeks will shape Venezuela’s future for generations. As the think tank Chatham House notes: “Everything we’ve learned from government transitions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere is that transitions are difficult.” And Venezuela, with its deep divisions, complex geography, and coveted resources, promises to be particularly difficult.

Global Implications

Beyond Venezuela, the U.S. operation has significant geopolitical implications. It sets a precedent—that one state can invade another, capture its leader, and announce that it will “manage” the country, without international or even domestic authorization. If the United States can do this in Venezuela, what’s to stop China from doing the same in Taiwan by citing “threats to national security”? What’s to stop Russia from justifying its actions in Ukraine by pointing to the American example? Republican Representative Don Bacon, though supportive of the operation, himself expressed this fear: “Russia will use this to justify its illegal and barbaric military actions against Ukraine, or China to justify an invasion of Taiwan.”

The rules-based international order, already weakened by years of tensions, emerges from this crisis even more fragile. Countries in the Global South—Africa, Asia, Latin America—which already felt marginalized by a system perceived as dominated by the West, will see the U.S. action as confirmation of their suspicions: the rules apply only to the weak. The major powers do as they please. This perception—whether true or false—has consequences. It drives countries to seek alternative alliances—with China, with Russia—and to distrust international institutions dominated by the United States. The operation against Venezuela could, paradoxically, accelerate the decline of American influence that it purported to strengthen.

We have entered a new era—an era in which rules can be swept aside with a wave of the hand. An era in which a presidential tweet can announce the overthrow of a government. No one knows how this story will end. But we will live with the consequences for decades to come.

Legal Outlook

Maduro is facing charges in U.S. court. He faces four counts: narco-terrorism conspiracy, cocaine importation, and possession of automatic weapons. According to the indictment, Maduro used his official position to facilitate trafficking into the United States by providing diplomatic passports to traffickers. The trial is shaping up to be one of the most high-profile in history—comparable to Noriega’s. But unlike Noriega, Maduro was forcibly extracted. His lawyers could challenge the legality of his capture.

Many questions remain unanswered. Other figures in the regime, such as Diosdado Cabello, have been indicted but remain in Venezuela. Representative Thomas Massie raised a troubling point: the indictment makes no mention of fentanyl—even though Trump justified the operation on the basis of that drug. The International Criminal Court has been investigating Venezuela for years. Will that investigation be abandoned in favor of the U.S. justice system?

I look at this photo of Maduro, handcuffed and blindfolded, and I feel a mix of conflicting emotions. This man has caused suffering to millions of people. He deserves to be held accountable for his actions. But the way this “justice” is being served makes me uncomfortable. It wasn’t an international court that convicted him. It was a foreign superpower that decided to snatch him from his palace. Is this really justice? Or is it the law of the strongest disguised as legality?

A Historic Turning Point

January 3, 2026, will go down in history as a turning point. In a matter of hours, the United States overthrew a sovereign government, captured its head of state, and announced that it would “administer” the country—all without a declaration of war, without congressional authorization, and without an international mandate. Trump did not attempt to justify his actions with elaborate arguments. He simply acted. Comparisons with Panama or Iraq are inevitable, but this operation surpasses them in its audacity and its open defiance of norms.

The questions raised will not go away. The legality of the action will be debated in the courts, in Congress, and in international forums. The legitimacy of the U.S. presence will be challenged on the ground. Venezuela’s future will be decided in the coming months. And the global balance of power will have to absorb the shockwaves. For Venezuela, for Latin America, for the entire world—nothing will ever be quite the same again.

As I close this file, I am left with more questions than answers. Was Maduro a tyrant? Yes. Did he deserve to be brought to justice? Absolutely. But was this operation legal? Almost certainly not. Was it wise? History will tell. If a U.S. president can, with a simple morning tweet, announce the overthrow of a foreign government and the seizure of its resources… then who is safe? Not Díaz-Canel’s Cuba, targeted by Rubio’s warnings. Not Nicaragua. Perhaps no one. We now live in the world of the “Don-roe Doctrine”—a world where America does what it wants, when it wants, to whomever it wants. And that is terribly, deeply frightening.