Trump and the US are gangsters.
Is the US kidnapping of Maduro in accordance with international law?
Posted on May 10, 2026 by Dtesca
Trump and the US are gangsters.
Although the US operation is based on “drug trafficking and narco-terrorism” charges under its own domestic law, it is considered an illegal act, a violation of sovereignty, and a crime of aggression under international law and the UN Charter
The US operation “Operation Absolute Resolve,” carried out in January 2026, which involved kidnapping Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife from Caracas and bringing them to trial in New York, is considered highly controversial and generally illegal under international law.
The main objections of international law experts and institutions on this issue are as follows:
- Violation of Sovereignty and Prohibition of the Use of Force
Article 2(4) of the United Nations (UN) Charter strictly prohibits states from “using force” or “threatening to use force” against the territorial integrity and political independence of another state.
Violation: The US conducting a military operation in the capital of another sovereign state and forcibly detaining the head of state is considered one of the most serious violations of Venezuela’s sovereignty.
Self-Defense: The only exception to the use of force in international law is “self-defense” (Article 51 of the UN Charter) or authorization by the UN Security Council. Since Venezuela did not attack the US and the Security Council did not take such a decision, the US action is considered to lack legal basis.
- Immunity of Heads of State
According to international customary law, heads of state in office enjoy absolute diplomatic immunity.
Judicial Immunity: A state cannot try the incumbent leader of another state in its own courts. Although the US attempts to circumvent this rule by defining Maduro as “illegitimate” and “de facto ruler,” in international law, a power effectively governing a country is a sufficient criterion for immunity. - The US Legal Basis: The Ker-Frisbie Doctrine
In US domestic law, courts argue that they have jurisdiction to try a defendant regardless of how the defendant is brought to court (even if abducted). This is called the Ker-Frisbie Doctrine.
International Counterpart: Although US courts can try the defendant, this does not change the fact that the operation violates international law. In other words, the action is “possible” under US law but constitutes a “crime” under international law.
- Similar Examples and Reactions
This event is being compared to the 1989 US intervention in Panama and the capture of Manuel Noriega. At the time, the UN General Assembly condemned this action as “a clear violation of international law.” Following the Maduro operation in 2026, Russia, China, and many Latin American countries also characterized it as “kidnapping” and “lawlessness.”
In short: Although the US operation is based on domestic charges of “drug trafficking and narco-terrorism,” it is considered an illegal act, a violation of sovereignty, and a crime of aggression under international law and the UN Charter.
About the Author
