Was Nicolás Maduro’s arrest by US forces even legal?

The arrest of a sitting foreign president by United States forces is almost without precedent in modern geopolitics. When US President Donald Trump confirmed that American troops had carried out strikes inside Venezuela, leading to the detention of President Nicolás Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores, the reaction was immediate and explosive. Both now face terrorism and narcotics-related charges in New York, but the manner of their capture has raised questions that stretch far beyond the courtroom.

Legal scholars, lawmakers, and foreign governments are now grappling with a single unsettling question: did the US president just redefine the limits of executive power on the world stage?

A Military operation without Congress in the picture

The controversy primarily lies on how the operation was authorised. The US Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war, while the president commands the military. That balance has been tested many times, but rarely in such a stark fashion.

The Venezuela strikes were conducted without prior congressional approval or notification. This stands in sharp contrast to statements made by senior Trump administration officials only weeks earlier. As recently as November, top aides privately and publicly acknowledged that any land-based military action in Venezuela would likely require congressional consent.

White House chief of staff Susie Wiles had openly stated that boots on the ground would amount to war, a scenario demanding legislative authorisation. Similar assessments were reportedly shared with members of Congress in closed-door briefings. Yet, despite those warnings, US forces moved ahead with strikes inside Venezuelan territory and forcibly removed its head of state.

Were Donald Trump’s actions legal?

In the absence of a formal legal opinion from the White House or the Department of Justice, administration officials have offered overlapping explanations. Some framed the mission as a narrow effort to execute an arrest warrant and protect US personnel involved in the operation.

Senator Mike Lee said Secretary of State Marco Rubio argued the action fell under the president’s inherent authority to defend Americans from imminent threats. Vice President JD Vance echoed that view online, insisting that criminal indictments for narcoterrorism strip Maduro of any moral shield.

Later, Rubio described the mission as support for a “law enforcement function,” a characterization that has drawn sharp criticism from constitutional experts. Historically, the US has relied on extradition treaties, diplomacy, or covert intelligence operations to apprehend indicted foreign figures. Open military strikes to seize a sitting president mark a dramatic break from that tradition.

Complicating matters further are President Trump’s public remarks. While officials initially emphasized the arrests, Trump spoke expansively about rebuilding Venezuela, managing its oil sector, and reclaiming assets he claimed were “stolen” from the United States.

Statements about “running the country right” and controlling resources have strengthened arguments that the operation was less about law enforcement and more about regime change. That distinction is critical. Under both US and international law, regime change through force carries far more severe legal consequences.

Some observers have compared the episode to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, but legal historians point to a different precedent: the 1989 US intervention in Panama that led to the capture of Manuel Noriega.

Like Maduro, Noriega was indicted on drug charges in US courts. His arrest relied on a controversial legal theory asserting that a US president has inherent authority to seize foreign nationals abroad, even if international law is violated. That argument, advanced decades ago, was never fully tested in court and remains deeply contested.

Critics warn that reviving this logic effectively grants the executive branch unchecked power to deploy military force anywhere in the world under the banner of criminal enforcement.

International law and the Sovereignty question

From an international law perspective, the operation is even more fraught. The forcible removal of a sitting head of state from their own territory is widely viewed as a violation of national sovereignty and the UN Charter’s prohibition on the use of force.

Sovereign immunity typically shields serving leaders from foreign arrest, except under narrow circumstances such as international tribunal mandates. China has already condemned the US action as a blatant breach of international norms, and diplomatic fallout is expected to intensify in multilateral forums.

Venezuela’s vast oil reserves add another layer of complexity. With roughly 303 billion barrels of proven crude, the country sits atop the largest reserves on the planet. Analysts warn that Maduro’s removal could destabilize the region, invite proxy competition, and deepen rivalry involving major powers like China and Russia.

Energy security, control over resources, and geopolitical influence are now intertwined with legal and moral questions surrounding the operation.

Beyond Venezuela, the implications reach directly into the core of American democracy. By authorising military action on foreign soil to capture a sitting president, without congressional approval and under evolving legal rationales, Trump has pushed Article II authority into uncharted territory.

Whether courts, Congress, or international institutions respond decisively remains to be seen. What is clear is that the arrest of Nicolás Maduro has become more than a foreign policy shock. It is a defining test of how far presidential power can stretch before the rule of law begins to fray.