On January 3 of the new year, the U.S. sent military forces to Venezuela to capture its president, Nicolás Maduro, and his wife due to a series of drug charges that will be tried in the United States. He is being accused of a drug trafficking conspiracy, conspiring to bring drugs over the border, as well as partnering with cartels that are disguised as terrorist groups. The invasion is justified on the basis that America is “helping” Venezuela. The country has been volatile under Maduro, riddled with humanitarian and economic crises. While it is meant to be a Republic, Maduro ruled as a dictator, refusing to leave office in the last election and suppressing any opposition to his policies. This instability has also caused a mass migration, prompting the anti-immigrant Trump to be upset by the influx of Venezuelan immigrants, which could also be considered one of the motivations for the recent invasion.
The intervention in Venezuela is not a surprise considering American history. American relations with Venezuela have been strained for years, stemming from the United States’ siding with Britain in a boundary dispute between Venezuela and British Guiana in the late 1800s. It also follows a trend of American intervention in Latin American politics. Documents such as the Monroe Doctrine and the Roosevelt Corollary, which state that European powers should have no involvement in the Western Hemisphere and that the U.S. can intervene as it sees fit, reflect this trend. Similar to today, this imperialist ideology was justified on the idea that they were “helping” the country they were interfering with; however, the main motivation was and is supporting American interests, especially economic. For example, following the Spanish-American War, the U.S. obtained a series of Spanish territories, one of which was the Philippines. The President at the time, William McKinley, had the opportunity to grant the Philippines its independence, but decided to annex the territory, claiming they were “unfit” to govern themselves. However, it is important to note that the Philippines was a major location that granted the U.S. access to the market in Asia, helping it to become a world power. Today, Venezuela might be struggling under Maduro, but its land is also full of oil reserves, which would majorly benefit the American economy.
Support for the intervention varies across the country, and it poses the question: Is this legal? The actions made by President Trump go against Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which states, “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.” This is a direct violation of the rules put in place by the United Nations; however, there is an exception if it is in the name of self-defense. This poses another question: Was this self-defense? President Trump and his supporters might say that Venezuela has been responsible for thousands of deaths caused by drugs, but others may argue that drug trafficking does not meet the standards of requiring self-defense. Nevertheless, what’s done is done, and only time will tell the effects of America’s actions.
References
Article 2(4) Contents. (n.d.). OFFICE OF LEGAL AFFAIRS |. Retrieved January 22, 2026, from https://legal.un.org/repertory/art2/english/rep_supp7_vol1_art2_4.pdf
Buschschlüter, V. (2026, January 3). Why has Donald Trump attacked Venezuela and taken Maduro? BBC. Retrieved January 22, 2026, from https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c93n4nx5yqro
Felbab, V. (2026, January 5). Making sense of the US military operation in Venezuela | Brookings. Brookings Institution. Retrieved January 22, 2026, from https://www.brookings.edu/articles/making-sense-of-the-us-military-operation-in-venezuela/
What is Maduro charged with and what is the evidence? (2026, January 5). BBC. Retrieved January 22, 2026, from https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwyndnqqey5o