The Illegal Actions of the Trump Administration in Venezuela: Consequences and Implications
According to national and international law, the illegality of the actions taken by the Trump administration in Venezuela earlier this month has serious long-term consequences for international peace and security, beyond being an immediate crisis and the costs it represents for the Venezuelan people.
The actions of the administration and their explanations are much more than a violation of national and international law: they directly undermine the very idea that the United States or its administration should be subject to the law or to the concepts of state sovereignty.
The bombing of various sites around Caracas and the capture and extradition of the Venezuelan president and his wife to the United States are widely considered as illegal acts of aggression against a sovereign nation under international law. This occurred after several weeks of other illegal and escalating actions, including the killing of civilians at sea and the seizure of oil tankers. Along with President Trump’s declaration that the United States will remain in Venezuela and control its oil “for years,” this contradicts the administration’s claims that Maduro’s extraction was a “surgical” action to enforce the law, according to his explanation to the United Nations General Assembly last week.
The United Nations Charter prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of a state, except in cases of self-defense or with authorization from the UN Security Council, neither of which applies in this case. These actions also violate the fundamental principles of the Organization of American States, including the rejection of acts of aggression and respect for sovereignty and international law.
The president’s actions also reveal a disregard for national legislation. His use of military force was not authorized by Congress, as required by the war powers resolution. The Group of Eight (key leaders of Congress on security matters) was not consulted, a common practice in delicate operations. They were only notified after the intervention had begun.
This brings the number of countries bombed by the United States in 2025 to seven: Iraq, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen, a continuation of actions by previous administrations, as well as new targets in Iran, Nigeria, and Venezuela. It seems that there is no one in the administration or Congress who can significantly limit the president and his team’s decisions regarding the use of such force, or demand that any action comply with the law or be strategically sensible.
From International Cooperation to Unilateral Aggression
Since his first press conference after the military action in Venezuela, the president made it clear that one of the main reasons the United States took such action was to give American companies greater access to the country’s oil reserves.
President Trump’s assertion that the United States will “rule” Venezuela also constitutes a violation of sovereignty and opens the door to corporate control and resource extraction. It also invokes the imperialistic history of the United States in the Western Hemisphere as if it were desirable. In fact, the recently published National Security Strategy reaffirms the “preeminence” of the United States in the Western Hemisphere as a key objective.
After two destructive world wars, the world drafted a set of international laws, including the United Nations Charter, to establish principles to safeguard sovereignty and justice, as well as to promote the causes of peace and security through diplomacy without resorting to aggression. As a superpower, the United States benefited from this agreement and the trust, influence, and legitimacy it provided, even though it did not always respect its principles.
However, the president and his advisors, including National Security Advisor Stephen Miller, made it clear that the actions of the current administration are not exceptions to the rules-based order, but that this order no longer suits them and that their goal is to organize the world under the doctrine of the law of the strongest.
Miller stated that the “iron laws of the world” demand a world “governed by force, governed by power.” When asked directly last week in an interview with the New York Times if he had to respect international law, the president responded evasively and pointed out that the only guidance he has for exercising power is “my own morality, my own mind, it’s the only thing that can stop me.”
This short-term vision that prioritizes unilateral advantages harms the world’s ability to survive long-term existential challenges. For decades, the norms of international law have allowed nations to avoid large-scale wars of aggression, albeit imperfectly, by establishing a framework for authority higher than that of the “law of the strongest.” Fundamentally, a foundation of trust and stability allows countries to work together to address problems that cannot be solved individually, including climate change, non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament, pandemics, and economic and social well-being.
Although the United States’ 2025 National Security Strategy recognizes that “alliances with our allies and partners in the strategically most important regions” are a fundamental “asset” for security, the decision the United States made last week to withdraw from 66 international organizations is another indication that the administration considers this type of cooperation of little value. The organizations in question include a wide variety of cooperation initiatives, including those related to climate, law and society, security, and non-proliferation.
The elimination of international legal and normative structures serves as a pretext for other states to embark on wars of aggression and undermines the United States’ position against Russia’s war on Ukraine and other wars of aggression. Additionally, the lack of a significant national and international response encourages this administration not to accept limits on its quest for more.
In statements following the invasion of Venezuela, the president also threatened regime change in Cuba, Mexico, and Colombia. Considering the extensive and destructive history of U.S. interventions in Latin America, this was not taken as an unfounded threat. And shortly after, the president threatened to take Greenland, a territory of Denmark, one of the United States’ historically most loyal allies and a member of NATO.
Reportedly, he even ordered the commander of U.S. special forces to draw up invasion plans. The president dismissed the current generous terms that allow the United States access to Greenland to install military bases, stating that “ownership” was required for “psychological” comfort. Taking Greenland would likely mean the end of the NATO alliance and open the door to direct conflict between the United States and Europe, including the other two NATO countries with nuclear weapons.
Even without a direct military attack, threatening neighboring countries and dismantling historical alliances will have significant consequences for regional and international security, leading to a likely less predictable and more conflict-prone environment.
Risks Increase in a Power-Hungry Era
Leaders will have to be more concerned that this kind of behavior is now more tolerable and with fewer mechanisms for accountability. Analysts suggest that North Korea, a country already fearing a decapitating attack by the United States, may consider this risk greater now that the Trump administration has put them into practice, increasing the possibility of misinterpretations and further solidifying their reliance on nuclear weapons as a security guarantor.
Cooperation between adversaries and allies has been crucial for nuclear non-proliferation, disarmament, and risk reduction efforts, which recognize that a large-scale conflict could be catastrophic in the nuclear age. It is likely even more difficult to continue these efforts under current conditions. Although the trends are concerning, there are still significant ways to impose limits.
Congress must exercise its constitutional authority to authorize the use of military force through the war powers resolution; the Senate vote last Thursday to proceed to a full vote is positive, but it is just the first hurdle among many. Congress must hold the administration accountable for the illegal use of U.S. military forces in Venezuela, and the United States must reaffirm its commitment to national and international law, as well as to the pursuit of common security based on sovereignty and respect for justice and human rights.
