In a dramatic escalation of U.S.–Venezuela tensions on Jan. 3, 2026, United States President Donald Trump ordered a large-scale military strike against Venezuela, resulting in the capture of President Nicolas Maduro and his wife and the announcement that the United States would temporarily “run” the South American nation: Trump broke world protocols with the Venezuela attack.
According to CBS News, beyond Maduro’s long-criticized rule, legal experts and world leaders are warning that Trump’s actions broke fundamental international protocols and the U.N. Charter, setting a dangerous precedent for state sovereignty and global law.
The strikes, reportedly carried out by elite U.S. forces and special operations units, targeted multiple Venezuelan military installations and culminated in Maduro’s capture and expulsion from Caracas. Trump described the operation as “one of the most stunning, effective and powerful displays of American might” in U.S. history, Reuters reports.
But despite triumphant rhetoric in Washington, and the threat toward Colombia’s President Gustavo Petro, the assault has triggered widespread international backlash.
International law violations
British outlet The Guardian recalls that under the United Nations Charter — the foundational treaty governing post-World War II international relations — member states are prohibited from using force against the territorial integrity or political independence of another state, barring self-defense or explicit Security Council authorization.
Legal scholars have been clear: The U.S. assault on Venezuelan territory appears to violate Article 2 (4) of the U.N. Charter, which bans the use of force absent those conditions. According to experts cited by The Guardian, the U.S. lacked both a U.N. Security Council resolution and a credible claim of imminent self-defense — essential components of lawful military action. Instead, Washington framed the operation as part of a campaign against so-called narcoterrorism and alleged drug trafficking linked to Maduro’s government.
Susan Breau, a professor of international law, told The Guardian that this is “A crime of aggression and unlawful use of force against another country.”
Some analysts cited by The Atlantic have also compared the operation to the U.S. invasion of Panama in 1989 — an episode widely criticized at the time for bypassing congressional authorization and international consent.
Global condemnation
World leaders swiftly denounced the offensive. Reuters reports that the European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen emphasized that any solution must “respect international law and the U.N. Charter,” reinforcing concerns that the strike undermined established norms of state conduct.
Latin American governments were particularly forceful in their criticism. Chile’s President Gabriel Boric called for peaceful solutions and respect for international law, while Mexico stressed that dialogue — not military intervention — is the legitimate path for resolving disputes.
Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva described, cited by Al Jazeera, the attack as crossing an “unacceptable line,” warning that such blatant violations threaten regional peace and invite chaos.
Even some nations historically allied with the U.S. acknowledged Maduro’s lack of legitimacy but stopped short of endorsing armed intervention, emphasizing that respect for sovereignty remains paramount.
China, Russia, and Iran also condemned the offensive, citing breaches of sovereign norms and calling for de-escalation.
Questions of authority and due process
AP News reports that the strike also raised serious questions inside the United States. Unlike a traditional declaration of war, Trump did not seek congressional authorization for the military action — a constitutional requirement for most uses of force abroad. Critics argue that bypassing Congress weakened democratic oversight and blurred lines between military action and executive power.
Legal commentators quoted by CBS News say the Trump administration’s framing of a “noninternational armed conflict” with designated “narco-terrorist” players does not justify strikes inside a sovereign nation without clear congressional or United Nations approval.
Human rights advocates also warn about the broader implications: if powerful states begin using vague pretexts to justify military intervention, global norms that have helped prevent interstate wars for decades could unravel.
Implications for global order
The U.S. assault on Venezuela may have long-lasting effects on international norms. By acting unilaterally and sidestepping established legal frameworks, critics argue that the Trump administration has chipped away at the authority of the U.N. system at a time when global cooperation is already under strain.
“If major powers can use military force without oversight, others may follow suit,” one international law expert told The Guardian, underscoring the risk of a more fluid and dangerous world order.
In Caracas, uncertainty now looms over Venezuela’s future. While the U.S. asserts its operation will usher in stability and counter Maduro’s alleged criminal enterprise, the broader international community remains wary. For many nations, the greater threat is not merely a dictator removed — but a precedent set that could weaken the legal frameworks designed to prevent war.