KRAKOW, POLAND JANUARY 3:
A woman watches ABC News Live as U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dan Caine explains details of a U.S. special military operation in Venezuela, with President Donald Trump present, in Krakow, Poland, January 3, 2026. (Photo by Artur Widak/NurPhoto via Getty Images)
What is being reported today—that the United States military removed Nicolás Maduro, the sitting president of Venezuela, under the direction of Donald Trump—should be treated as a constitutional, legal, and moral emergency rather than a triumph. Even setting aside one’s opinion of Maduro or the failures of his government, the use of unilateral military force to depose a head of state is plainly illegal under international law. This is not a gray area. It is precisely the sort of conduct the modern international legal system was created to prohibit.
The cornerstone of international law since 1945 is the prohibition on the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of another state. Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter bars such actions outright, allowing only two narrow exceptions: self-defense against an armed attack or action authorized by the UN Security Council (United Nations, 1945). No credible public evidence suggests that Venezuela launched an armed attack against the United States, nor has there been any Security Council authorization permitting regime removal. Absent either condition, military intervention for the purpose of removing a government constitutes unlawful aggression under international law (Brownlie, 1963; United Nations, 1970).
Attempts to justify such an action by invoking “self-defense,” “counter-narcotics,” or “restoring democracy” do not survive serious legal scrutiny. International law does not permit a state to overthrow another government because it is authoritarian, corrupt, or hostile to foreign economic interests. The UN General Assembly has repeatedly affirmed that no state has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, in the internal affairs of another, regardless of motive (United Nations General Assembly, 1970). This principle exists precisely because powerful states have historically cloaked invasions in moral language while pursuing strategic and economic gains.
Seen through that lens, this intervention reads less like a defense of democracy and more like a textbook exercise in plutocratic power. Venezuela possesses some of the largest proven oil reserves in the world, and U.S. policy toward the country for decades has revolved around control, access, and leverage over those resources (Mommer, 2002). When military force is paired with rhetoric about “stabilizing” oil production, reopening markets, or placing foreign companies in a position to manage extraction, the intent becomes difficult to deny. This is not about liberating Venezuelans; it is about aligning state violence with corporate interests, particularly those of multinational energy companies that stand to benefit from regime change.
International law directly rejects this logic. The principle of permanent sovereignty over natural resources affirms that a people’s land, minerals, and energy reserves belong to them alone and must be used for their national development, not appropriated through coercion or foreign occupation (United Nations General Assembly, 1962). That right does not evaporate because a foreign power disapproves of how a country governs itself or wishes to restructure its economy. To claim otherwise is to revive colonial doctrines that the postwar legal order explicitly sought to bury.
What makes this moment especially dangerous is the precedent it sets. If the United States can openly remove a foreign leader by force and then claim legal justification after the fact, the entire prohibition on aggressive war becomes performative rather than binding. Other powers will follow the same script, citing security concerns, economic stability, or humanitarian necessity as cover. The result is not a safer world, but a return to a system where might makes right and international law exists only to discipline the weak.
The Venezuelan people have the exclusive right to determine their political future and to decide how their resources are used. That process may be flawed, painful, and slow, but it cannot be replaced by foreign troops and oil contracts without shredding the legal norms that protect all states, large and small. If international law means anything at all, it means that regime change by force—especially when tied to resource extraction—is illegal, illegitimate, and profoundly destabilizing.
References
Brownlie, I. (1963). International law and the use of force by states. Oxford University Press.
Mommer, B. (2002). Global oil and the nation state. Oxford University Press.
United Nations. (1945). Charter of the United Nations. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter
United Nations General Assembly. (1962). Permanent sovereignty over natural resources (Resolution 1803 (XVII)).
United Nations General Assembly. (1970). Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States (Resolution 2625 (XXV)).
