On January 3, 2026, President Donald Trump announced that U.S. military forces conducted strikes in Venezuela, leading to the capture of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores. This operation, framed by the Trump administration as a response to alleged drug trafficking and narco-terrorism, has sparked debate over its legality, particularly due to the absence of congressional approval, which is typically required for military action under the U.S. Constitution.

Legal experts have raised concerns that the strikes violate international law, specifically the United Nations Charter, which prohibits the use of military force against sovereign nations without a clear justification, such as self-defense or a UN Security Council resolution. Prominent international law scholars, including Geoffrey Robertson KC and Oona Hathaway, have argued that the U.S. actions constitute a breach of the UN Charter and could be classified as a crime of aggression. They emphasize that drug trafficking does not meet the threshold for self-defense as defined by international law.

The Trump administration's justification for the military intervention has been met with skepticism, as evidence linking Maduro to drug trafficking remains tenuous. Critics argue that framing military action as a response to drug-related issues could set a dangerous precedent, allowing for broader justifications for military interventions that undermine international norms.

In addition to legal ramifications, the military action raises ethical questions regarding the motivations behind U.S. intervention. Trump's remarks about safeguarding American oil interests in Venezuela suggest that economic factors may play a significant role in the decision to intervene, rather than purely humanitarian concerns for the Venezuelan populace. This aligns with historical patterns of U.S. foreign policy in Latin America, where military actions have often been justified under the guise of promoting democracy while serving corporate interests.

The implications of this military action extend beyond Venezuela, potentially affecting U.S. relations with other nations and the credibility of international law. The lack of accountability for such unilateral actions could embolden other countries to pursue similar military interventions, further destabilizing global peace and security.

As the situation unfolds, Congress faces the challenge of addressing the legality of the military action, which echoes historical precedents of executive overreach in U.S. foreign policy. The ongoing debate highlights the need for a careful examination of the balance between national security interests and adherence to legal and ethical standards in international relations.