The early-morning capture of Venezuela’s President Nicolas Maduro by United States forces on Saturday, January 3, has triggered a storm of legal, diplomatic and constitutional debate, marking one of the most extraordinary uses of American military power against a foreign head of state in modern history.
According to US officials, Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, were seized during a surprise military operation inside Venezuela and swiftly transferred to a US naval vessel before being flown to New York. By Saturday evening, US authorities confirmed that Maduro was being transported to face criminal charges stemming from a long-running federal indictment issued by a New York grand jury.
The operation capped months of escalating pressure by President Donald Trump’s administration, which has repeatedly accused Maduro of presiding over a “narco-state” and supporting drug cartels designated by Washington as terrorist organisations. Trump has argued that these groups are responsible for thousands of American deaths linked to illegal drug trafficking, framing the seizure as both a national security imperative and a long-delayed act of justice.
Yet while US officials have described the mission as a law enforcement operation, Trump’s own statements — including remarks suggesting Washington might “run Venezuela for a period of time” — have muddied the legal basis for the action and raised alarms among constitutional and international law experts.
At the heart of the controversy lies a fundamental question: was the seizure of Maduro a narrowly tailored law enforcement action, or did it amount to an unlawful use of military force against a sovereign state?
US authorities say the Justice Department sought military assistance to apprehend Maduro after he was indicted alongside Flores, their son, two senior political figures and an alleged leader of an international criminal gang. The charges include terrorism-related offences, large-scale drug trafficking and weapons violations.
Attorney General Pam Bondi said on social media that the defendants “will soon face the full wrath of American justice on American soil in American courts,” portraying the operation as a necessary step to bring indicted criminals before US judges.
However, international law experts argue that criminal indictments alone do not provide legal authority to deploy armed forces into another country without its consent.
“A criminal indictment alone doesn’t provide authority to use military force to depose a foreign government,” said Matthew Waxman, a professor of national security law at Columbia University. “The administration will probably hang this also on a theory of self-defence, but that theory is extremely strained.”
Under international law, the use of force in international relations is prohibited except in limited circumstances, such as self-defence against an armed attack or when authorised by the United Nations Security Council. Drug trafficking and organised crime, while serious criminal matters, do not meet the legal threshold of an armed conflict that would justify military action, according to most legal scholars.
A Pattern of Escalation
Saturday’s operation did not occur in isolation. Since September, US forces have carried out at least 30 strikes against alleged drug trafficking boats linked to Venezuela in the Caribbean and Pacific, killing more than 100 people, according to US officials. Legal experts say those operations likely violated both US and international law, as they were conducted without the consent of Venezuelan authorities and outside a recognised armed conflict.
The Trump administration has justified those actions by arguing that Venezuelan-linked cartels pose an imminent threat to US national security. Critics, however, say the campaign represents a dangerous expansion of military force into what has traditionally been the realm of law enforcement and international cooperation.
That distinction became even blurrier when Trump, speaking at a press conference on Saturday, accused Venezuela of “stealing US oil interests” and suggested Washington would take them back. He added that the United States planned to oversee Venezuela for an unspecified period, offering no details about the legal or political framework for such control.
“You cannot say this was a law enforcement operation and then turn around and say now we need to run the country,” said Jeremy Paul, a constitutional law professor at Northeastern University. “It just doesn’t make any sense.”
The operation has also raised questions about presidential authority under US law. The Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war, while the president serves as commander-in-chief of the armed forces. Over decades, presidents of both parties have asserted the authority to carry out limited military actions without congressional approval when they deem them necessary to protect national interests.
Still, senior figures within Trump’s own orbit have previously suggested that a ground operation in Venezuela would require congressional authorisation. Trump’s Chief of Staff, Susie Wiles, told Vanity Fair in an interview published late last year that if Trump were to authorise “some activity on land” in Venezuela, he would need approval from Congress.
On Saturday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio acknowledged that Congress was not notified in advance of the operation, further fuelling criticism from lawmakers who say the president overstepped his authority.
Another key legal complication is Venezuela’s political status. The United States has not recognised Maduro as the legitimate leader of Venezuela since 2019, following an election Washington described as rigged. However, while the US has refused to acknowledge Maduro’s presidency, it has also not formally recognised an alternative leader with the authority to consent to US action.
In past cases where the US has captured suspects abroad, including in Libya, it sought the cooperation or consent of local authorities. In Venezuela’s case, no such consent was possible.
Supporters of the operation point to historical precedent, most notably the 1989 arrest of Panamanian leader Manuel Noriega. Noriega, who had been indicted on drug charges in the United States, was captured during a US invasion of Panama. At the time, Washington argued it was acting to protect US citizens after Panamanian forces killed an American soldier and said Noriega was an illegitimate leader. The US had also recognised an opposition candidate as Panama’s rightful president.
Yet legal scholars note that the Noriega case involved an overt military invasion and resulted in significant international condemnation — a reminder, they argue, of how controversial such actions remain.
Despite the outcry from some international leaders and legal experts, few believe the United States will face meaningful accountability for its actions in Venezuela.
International law lacks strong enforcement mechanisms, particularly when alleged violations are committed by powerful states. The International Criminal Court has limited jurisdiction, and the United States does not recognise its authority.
“It’s hard to see how any legal body could impose practical consequences on the administration,” said Paul. “Even if the actions are unlawful, enforcement is another matter entirely.”
As Maduro prepares to face trial in New York, the legal and political fallout from his capture is only beginning. The operation has set a precedent that could reshape how states use military power in the name of law enforcement — and has reopened long-standing debates about sovereignty, accountability and the limits of presidential authority.
Whether those debates will translate into lasting legal or political consequences remains an open question. For now, the seizure of a sitting head of state by US forces stands as a stark reminder of how blurred the line between law enforcement and warfare has become in an era of globalised crime and power politics.
