Will Trump Face Consequences for Venezuela Attack? International Law Experts Explain Why He Won't

President Donald Trump's 'large-scale strike' on Venezuela and the capture of President Nicolas Maduro have been condemned by international law experts as a clear violation of the UN Charter—but they say the US will face absolutely no consequences due to its veto power on the Security Council.

Multiple legal scholars spoke out Saturday following the operation, which saw Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, captured and indicted in New York on terrorism and drugs charges. Trump has accused Maduro of running a 'narco terrorist organisation', but experts say this claim cannot justify the invasion under international law.

International Law Experts Condemn 'Illegal Aggression'

Ben Saul, the United Nations' special rapporteur on human rights and counterterrorism, slammed what he called Washington's 'illegal aggression against Venezuela' and the 'illegal abduction' of its president. 'Every Venezuelan life lost is a violation of the right to life. President Trump should be impeached & investigated for the alleged killings,' Saul wrote on social media.

Zinaida Miller, a professor of law and international affairs at Northeastern University, said that the actions of deposing and abducting the Venezuelan president 'are a blatant violation of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which prohibits the use of force without Security Council authorisation'. She added: 'International law is quite clear that one country cannot lawfully overthrow the leader of another, nor can it try them in its domestic courts.'

Self-Defence Justification Fails Legal Test

David M Crane, the founding chief prosecutor of the UN Special Court for Sierra Leone, wrote in JURIST that the administration has not demonstrated that Venezuela launched or was imminently preparing an armed attack on the United States. 'Allegations that boats "might" be carrying drugs or that gangs "may" be linked to the Maduro government do not satisfy the strict imminence requirement under Article 51,' Crane wrote.

He added that the administration's shifting justifications—terrorist designations, alleged cartel links, and claims that vessels were 'headed toward the United States'—do not meet the legal threshold for self‑defence. UN human rights experts have explicitly stated that the US naval blockade and related military operations 'amount to an armed attack' and that there is 'no right to impose unilateral sanctions through an armed blockade.'

Phil Gunson, an analyst with the International Crisis Group based in Caracas, compared the capture of Maduro to the fall of Panamanian leader Manuel Noriega on 3 January 1990, which was also orchestrated by the US. 'It's not legal,' Gunson said of Maduro's capture.

Why Sanctions Remain Impossible

Despite the widespread condemnation, the US faces no practical consequences because of its permanent veto power on the UN Security Council. The council can impose sanctions on countries to maintain peace, including trade restrictions, arms embargos and travel bans. However, five members—the US, China, Russia, the UK and France—have veto power, meaning any action against the US cannot come into force.

Geoffrey Robertson KC, a former president of the UN war crimes court in Sierra Leone, told The Guardian that this renders the Security Council 'a worthless body'. 'A country which breaks international law can avoid condemnation simply by vetoing it,' he said.

Dangerous Global Precedent

UN Secretary-General António Guterres said he is 'deeply alarmed' by US action that sets 'a dangerous precedent.' 'The Secretary-General continues to emphasise the importance of full respect—by all—of international law, including the UN Charter. He's deeply concerned that the rules of international law have not been respected,' UN spokesperson Stephane Dujarric said.

Robertson warned that the lack of consequences could embolden other countries. 'The most obvious consequence is that China will take the opportunity to invade Taiwan,' he told The Guardian. 'This is the most appropriate time for it to do so, bolstered by the precedent of Trump's invasion of Venezuela.'

Christopher Sabatini, a Latin America expert at the Chatham House international affairs think tank, said that the US strikes 'open up an entirely unforeseen, in many ways unexpected, series of events'. He said elements of the Trump administration have held a 'dangerously naive' belief that 'if you decapitate the regime, figuratively speaking, by removing Maduro...that would somehow lead to a democratic transition'.

Why This Matters

With the US immune from UN Security Council sanctions due to its veto power, the international legal framework designed to prevent wars of aggression is being fundamentally undermined. Multiple UN officials and legal experts have condemned the operation as illegal, yet no enforcement mechanism exists to hold Washington accountable—setting a precedent that could reshape how powerful nations interact with smaller states in an era where military might trumps international law.