The US military blitz in Venezuela raises numerous legal questions. This intervention was denounced Monday evening by the UN Security Council. The experts interviewed by France 24, for their part, underline the liberties taken by Donald Trump vis-à-vis international law and the American Congress. Analysis.

Published on: 06/01/2026 - 16:01

Can Donald Trump make his law to the detriment of all established rules? The question has preoccupied the American press, legal experts and the international community since the unilateral intervention of the United States in Venezuela on the night of Friday to Saturday. The UN Security Council - of which Washington is a member - also met urgently, Monday January 5, to discuss this military operation which led to the capture of President Nicolas Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores.

Several countries expressed their opposition to this unilateral American intervention. “In situations as confusing and complex as the one we face, it is important to respect the principles”, in particular “respect for the principles of sovereignty, political independence and territorial integrity of States”, declared the Secretary General of the United Nations, Antonio Guterres. He also reiterated his concern about the fact that “rules of international law have not been respected”.

For Me Johann Soufi, the American intervention in Venezuela "is a clear and simple violation of international law": "The Charter of the United Nations provides for the prohibition of the use of force against another State, except in two hypotheses: in the case of self-defense or in the event of authorization from the Security Council. In this case, we are neither in the first nor in the second case", explains to France 24 the lawyer specializing in international criminal justice and human rights.

See alsoTrump: the law of the strongest?

Article 2(4) of the UN Charter is, in fact, unambiguous on the subject: it specifies that members of the UN "shall refrain from resorting to the threat or use of force, either against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner incompatible with the purposes of the United Nations".

Added to this is the fact that the capture and clandestine exfiltration of Nicolas Maduro and his wife to the United States was justified by Donald Trump in particular for “narcoterrorism”. A formulation which “does not constitute (in itself) a legal basis for the use of force” but which “relates to political or moral considerations”, specifies to the newspaper Le Monde Sébastien Touzé, professor at Panthéon-Assas University and director of the René Cassin Foundation.

The “Donroe doctrine” or the “imperialist vision of the Trump administration”

Since this weekend, the Trump administration has not relied on international law to justify its intervention in Caracas: American Secretary of State Marco Rubio and then the American envoy to the UN, Mike Waltz, have successively defended a “law and order operation” in Venezuela.

Also read: Venezuela: after the capture of Maduro, does the Chavista apparatus want to cooperate or resist?

“With these declarations, they consider that the world belongs to them and that the American army is the world police,” explains Me Johann Soufi. “This reflects the Trump administration's imperialist vision that the world is its playground and property, and that it assumes the right to appropriate resources, invade a country or capture individuals as it sees fit.”

Behind the justification for maintaining order also hides a broader strategy of the current American administration, presented on Saturday by Donald Trump under the name of "Donroe doctrine" - a neologism resulting from the contraction of the first name of the American president and the Monroe doctrine.

"Marco Rubio's declaration is the concrete application of the Trump Doctrine, which is itself a revitalization of the Monroe Doctrine (more than 200 years old, editor's note). This implies that the United States declares itself responsible and guarantor of order and security in the Americas in general and that, when they intervene militarily in South America, they consider that it is an operation to maintain order", explains to France 24 Jacob Maillet, specialist in North American institutions and teacher at Paris-Descartes University.

Read alsoAfter the capture of Maduro in Venezuela, Trump tempted by an operation in Cuba?

This Trumpian vision was detailed in the National Security Strategy 2025, published in early December. It states in particular that the United States "wants a Western Hemisphere whose governments cooperate with us against narco-terrorists, cartels and other transnational criminal organizations." Washington also speaks in this document of “wanting to guarantee (its) continued access to key strategic locations”. Words that resonate strongly with those of Donald Trump, who said this weekend that he wanted to reopen Venezuela - one of the world's largest reserves of black gold - to American oil companies.

“Such disdain for Congress from a sitting president”

The American military operation also raised concerns on the national scene. Democratic elected officials vigorously contested the Trump administration's reading of events, like Hakeem Jeffries: "It was not just an anti-narcotics operation, it was an act of war," the leader of the Democrats in the House of Representatives said on Sunday on NBC. His Senate counterpart, Chuck Schumer, added: "They entered Venezuela, bombed both civilian and military sites. And it is a violation of the law to do what they did without obtaining authorization from Congress."

The American president admitted on Saturday not to have consulted the main legislative body of the United States: "Congress has a tendency to disclose information. It would not be a good thing. If they had disclosed information... I think the result would perhaps have been very different" in Venezuela, declared Donald Trump. This sidelining of Congress is not a first, it is even rather the fruit of a “bipartisan tradition” to which Democrats and Republicans have historically consented, according to Jacob Maillet.

“There has been a long drift in terms of the president's war power, with a great bipartisan tradition according to which (the tenant of the White House) can carry out small-scale military operations without the agreement of Congress,” explains the specialist in North American institutions. “What we call the imperial presidency is precisely the fact that the president allows himself to use the army without doing so formally, without declaration of war and sometimes even without authorization to use force.”

Also readVenezuela under American supervision? Donald Trump's risky bet

This being said, the teacher at Paris-Descartes University sees something "new" in recent events: "Such disdain for Congress on the part of a sitting president is still really rare. It is affirming in a certain way that he does not need to consult it, which rather goes against the American Constitution", continues the specialist. “So this is a message sent to Congress, because it cost Donald Trump absolutely nothing to discreetly consult his eminent Republican members.”

And it is not from the Republicans that a defense of the legislative institution will come: the two Republican leaders in the Senate and the House of Representatives, John Thune and Mike Johnson, have also welcomed Donald Trump's decision in unison, without deploring the trampling of their prerogatives.

Ultimately, this is not likely to reassure the proper functioning of counter-powers in the United States if events similar to those in Venezuela were to occur in the future. “We can wonder if Donald Trump will not be encouraged by this lack of resistance,” concludes Jacob Maillet, “and we wonder what he might be ready to do next time.”

Keywords associated with the article

The content you are trying to access does not exist or is no longer available.