Was the USA’s extraction of Maduro justifiable?
- Feb 10
- 6 min read
Written By: Astrid Richardson
Edited by: Inaaya Mahek
The USA’s extraction of President Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela on the 3rd January 2026 has shocked the international community, and been the focal point of news discussions for weeks. [1] The sheer audacity required to begin the year with such a bold statement leaves the feeling that Donald Trump has crossed some kind of line; whether that is the line between criminality and lawfulness or the line between passiveness and strength is yet to be seen. While reactions range from begrudging acceptance to complete rejection, the question still remains: Was the USA’s extraction of Maduro justifiable?
To answer this question, one must first be compelled to look at exactly how this move has broken international law considering the fact that this is the golden standard for Western international relations.
Both the USA and Venezuela are members of the United Nations, [2] and as such, both adhere to the UN Charter, which is a document which lays out the rules which the nations agree to and the purposes of the UN. The UN Charter, Article 2, Clause 4 states that ‘all members shall refrain in their international relations from the use of threat or force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state or in any other manner which is inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.’ [3] Simply put, this means that members should not use threat or force to infringe on another country’s territory or political integrity, for any reason which is not in accordance with maintaining international peace or promoting respect for human rights and basic freedoms.
It could be argued that Donald Trump was not in fact using force against the political independence of Venezuela but rather for the political independence of Venezuela, as the country’s elections are thought to be influenced by corruption and the control of Maduro’s regime.[4] Freedom House, a reputable source which details the political state of different countries, considers Venezuela to be ‘not free’ due to restrictions on civil liberties and political rights. [5] Therefore, the removal of the President could be considered an attempt to overturn the Venezuelan regime, and usher in a new era of political independence which would mean that the USA was using force in accordance with the Purposes of the UN. [3] However, Trump’s remarks do not inspire confidence that this is the case.
The US President has said that he will ‘run Venezuela’ until a ‘safe, proper and judicious transition’ [7] can be ensured, but he has not indicated who will take over. Moreover, he has in fact said that Machado, Maduro’s rival who was believed to have legitimately won the last election, ‘doesn’t have the support within or the respect within the country’ to run the country [7].
Currently, he is dealing with Maduro’s former vice president, and despite Machado presenting him with her Nobel Peace Prize, for ‘his unique commitment with our freedom’ [8] he will not be putting her in charge. This suggests that Trump does not hold the will of the Venezuelan people in high regard, despite Machado’s comments, and he has made no effort to find out who they want in charge. More important still, than his apparent disregard of the Venezuelans, is his possession of Venezuelan oil. U.S. officials have said that it will control Venezuelan oil sales indefinitely to restore the country’s economy, and crucially, to make sure it acts in America’s interest [7]. This further outlines Trump’s disregard for the Venezuelans and shows that, despite the argument that he is trying to maintain American security against the drugs flowing from Venezuela to America, [6] he is violating the national integrity of Venezuela by exerting such a large influence over them. This seems to indicate that Trump is not acting in the spirit of the Purposes of the United Nations, which generally outline peaceful resolution of conflict and maintaining national security. Trump has also violated Article 2, Clause 3 which states that ‘all members shall settle international disputes peacefully…’ [3] such as the flow of migrants and drugs from Venezuela to America.
In the USA, Maduro has been charged with, among other things, possession of machine guns and destructive devices, [9] despite the fact that a country’s right to possess weapons is also protected under international law, along with a recognised leader’s right to diplomatic immunity, which exists to stop this situation from happening. Furthermore, this is also a breach of another type of international law, as the extradition treaty between America and Venezuela does not allow Venezuelan citizens - let alone its own president - to be extradited and tried under US law because of its constitution.
It is clear that the extraction violates several articles of international law. But so what?
The fact that Trump's actions’ breaks international law should make this abduction much harder to justify to the world but this is not accurately reflected in the European leaders’ response.
This is the problem with international law as a whole - it is very difficult to enforce in these types of situations. Usually, UN members co-operate with each other to punish individuals in violation of international law, however the situation becomes much more complicated when the violations come from governments, especially a government as powerful as the US government. It is typically up to other countries to try and enforce international law by punishing the violators, for example when Russia invaded Ukraine, all of Europe responded by refusing to buy Russian oil despite the impact it had on their economies respectively. America is different because historically, it has been an extremely close ally of Europe, and has offered protection through NATO for a century. This results in European leaders being reluctant to be the first to break this warm relationship with a very powerful country. This is particularly demonstrated in Keir Starmer’s response, saying he would ‘shed no tears’ for the end of Maduro’s regime, despite the fact that Starmer has been a strong advocate of international law for much of his life [10].
However, despite the European leaders’ lack of action, it can still be recognised that this extraction is not justified and crosses the line into state-sanctioned criminal behaviour. While America may try to use Venezuela’s own failure to meet Western standards of democracy as a justification in itself for the possessive stance they have taken, this does not work. The fact that Venezuela is a repressive country does not neutralise the fact that America has breached their territorial integrity. This may even set a precedent for other countries to take similar action, and undermines the West’s condemnation of the invasion of Ukraine.
Conclusion
Therefore it can be concluded that the USA’s abduction of President Maduro cannot be justified despite any potential benefits to the country of Venezuela and specifically its political freedom because it has been shown that it is not acting in the interests of the Venezuelan people but rather its own interests - and so this breach of several articles of international law cannot be explained away. However this situation is still developing and so the ramifications, positive or negative, are yet to be fully understood.
Bibliography:
1. BBC News. The Papers. News article, BBC News. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news. 2. United Nations. Member States. Web page, United Nations.
3. United Nations. Charter of the United Nations (Full Text). Treaty document, United Nations, 1945. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter.
4. Sky News. Was the US Attack in Venezuela and Capture of Maduro Legal? News article, Sky News. https://news.sky.com/.
5. Freedom House. Venezuela: Freedom in the World 2024 Country Report. Report, Freedom House, 2024.
6. BBC News. Donald Trump Says US Will “Run” Venezuela and “Fix Oil Infrastructure”. News article, BBC News. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news.
7. BBC News. Machado Presents Trump with Her Nobel Award at White House Meeting. News article, BBC News. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news.
8. BBC News. Why Has Donald Trump Attacked Venezuela and Taken Maduro? News article, BBC News. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news.
9. United States Department of State. Nicolás Maduro Moros. Profile page, U.S. Department of State. https://www.state.gov/.
10. BBC News. World Leaders React to US Capture of Venezuelan Leader Nicolás Maduro. News article, BBC News. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news.
Comments