PUBLISHED
January 11, 2026
KARACHI:
The early weeks of 2026 have revealed a United States that no longer seems guided by the principles it once championed. Its intervention in Venezuela—removing President Nicolás Maduro on charges of sending an influx of criminal migrants and allegedly siphoning American oil, while leaving elements of his regime in place—defies both reason and the international laws Washington once held up as a model for the world.
Days after the operation, President Donald Trump offered a clarification during a wide-ranging conversation with four New York Times reporters: his administration expects the United States to oversee Venezuela and extract oil from its vast reserves for years. He insisted that the country’s interim government—all former loyalists of the now-imprisoned Maduro—is “giving us everything that we feel is necessary.”
When reminded that his actions violate international law, Trump responded defiantly, “I don’t need international law,” asserting that his authority is limited only by his “own morality.” The invasion of Venezuela and what experts have described as the ‘abduction’ of its president—regardless of his alleged role in manipulating elections—has already shocked the world. By disregarding international norms, Trump signals that he sees power, rather than law, as the ultimate authority. On X, the US State Department reinforced this stance, declaring that the Western Hemisphere is “ours” and that President Trump will not allow its security to be threatened.
An emboldened Trump then extended that reasoning beyond Venezuela. He told the world—and particularly Europe—that Washington would not stop at Caracas. Speaking to oil executives at the White House, he argued that the United States must act in Greenland to prevent Russia or China from establishing a presence there: “We are going to do something on Greenland, whether they like it or not. Because if we don’t do it, Russia or China will take over Greenland, and we’re not going to have Russia or China as a neighbor.” Taken together, these actions signal a striking departure from traditional US responsibilities. Once the world’s chief enforcer of international law, the United States now appears to have abdicated that role in a distinctly Trumpian fashion, openly endorsing a division of the globe into spheres of influence, with Washington, Beijing, and Moscow each exerting control over their respective regions.
This provides some context to Trump’s recent actions and statements. He appears determined to upend established norms and assert American dominance over what he regards as its neighbourhood. That vision is already evident in parts of Latin America, where right-wing leaders are gaining influence and pursuing policies aligned with the US president’s worldview. In El Salvador, for example, President Nayib Bukele agreed to house more than 200 Venezuelan deportees in the country’s maximum-security prison—an offer, the New York Times reported, that no other nation was willing to make—which instantly earned him praise from the White House. Similarly, Argentina’s president, Javier Milei, who campaigned on a “Make Argentina Great Again” slogan and questioned the legitimacy of the 2020 US election, received a $20bn financial lifeline from Trump as his government teetered on the edge of economic collapse. Days later, Milei’s party secured a decisive victory in the midterm elections, and the US president took full credit. “We’re getting a real strong handle on South America,” Trump told reporters.
These developments suggest that the White House, under what might be termed the “Donroe Doctrine”—a Trumpian reinterpretation of the Monroe Doctrine of 1823, which asserted US claims over the Western Hemisphere—is willing to reward compliant leaders and punish those who resist its demands. Against this backdrop, a larger question arises: is the United States under Trump walking away from the long-standing norms that once constrained unilateral uses of force, and if so, what are the long-term consequences for the global order?
Kenneth Roth, the former executive director of Human Rights Watch, argued that while there have been previous instances in which the United States has used force without UN security council authorisation or a credible claim of self-defence, Trump’s invasion of Venezuela marks a dangerous departure. “This was a brazen case,” he said. “The claim that it was a law-enforcement operation is laughable. Trump has invaded another country and seized its head of state without even the thinnest veil of legality.” Coming from the world’s most influential power, Roth added, such actions inflict lasting damage on the international legal order, particularly the principles enshrined in the UN charter that protect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of nation states.
Assault on international law
For decades, successive US administrations presented themselves as custodians of an international system governed by law rather than force. Even when those rules were bent or selectively applied, the language of legal obligation remained central to Washington’s claim to global leadership. Under Donald Trump, that pretence has largely fallen away—perhaps deliberately, as many experts argue.
From the outset of his presidency, international law has been treated not as a framework to be navigated but as an encumbrance to be discarded. That approach became evident early on, most visibly in Trump’s decision to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement in 2017, a move formalised three years later. Now in his second term, the US president has repeatedly dismissed legal constraints altogether, insisting that the United States does not need international law and is guided instead by what he describes as his “own morality.” The declaration is more than rhetorical bravado. It signals a broader repudiation of the post-Second World War legal order at a moment when that order is already under acute strain.
The erosion of US commitment to international norms carries consequences far beyond its borders. When Washington abandons the language of legality, it weakens the very standards it has long invoked to challenge territorial aggression and unlawful uses of force. In Ukraine, Russia’s claims acquire a veneer of legitimacy in a world where rules are openly treated as optional. Elsewhere, including in Sudan—where violence is sustained by regional meddling and impunity—the absence of firm legal red lines further entrenches civilian suffering.
“To say that he is limited by ‘his own morality’ is meaningless when this is a president who prioritizes his own self-aggrandizement above all else,” Roth argued. “He would have the world ruled according to his ego and whim. This is a rejection of the fundamental legal framework that has been in place for decades. It is a dangerous position.” He added that Trump may feel insulated by US military supremacy, but “he cannot coerce the entire world. In most cases, economic clout matters more.”
Other governments, Roth noted, are already adjusting their strategies in response. “As Trump shows himself to be a lawless president, we will see more governments hedging their bets. The European Union and Mercosur have just done that with their announcement of a major free-trade deal. Many countries will gravitate toward China, which in parts of the world already surpasses the United States in trade and investment.”
He added that the consequences of Trump’s disregard for international law extend far beyond Washington. “The belief that the United States will always benefit from a world governed by might is deeply flawed. Authority in the international system is no longer concentrated in a single capital. In an increasingly multipolar world, the abandonment of law does not create freedom of action—it accelerates the erosion of influence,” Roth cautioned.
The legality of the invasion
Shortly after US jets struck targets in Caracas in an operation aimed at capturing Maduro, few questioned that the assault violated established international law. Branded “Operation Absolute Resolve,” the mission has been described as a tactical success by military standards, yet it clearly contravened one of the most fundamental tenets of global order – the prohibition on the use of force in international relations enshrined in Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter.
Janina Dill, Professor and Dame Louise Richardson Chair in Global Security at the Blavatnik School of Government, observed that US officials attempted to frame the intervention as a domestic law‑enforcement action. “Labeling it a law‑enforcement operation does not change the fact that the United States launched an armed operation on Venezuelan territory without consent.” In Dill’s assessment, such an incursion constitutes an international armed conflict, and no nation may lawfully enforce its domestic laws on the soil of another state without permission.
The Oxford expert added that even this “law-enforcement” justification fails to shield the operation from legal scrutiny. “The capture of an effective, albeit clearly illegitimate, head of state represents a further breach of international law rather than a mitigation of it,” Dill explained, highlighting that the mission cannot be reconciled with the principles that have governed state conduct since the creation of the UN.
Roth described the invasion as “blatantly illegal – an act of aggression in violation of the UN Charter.” There is, he argued, no exception to the presumptive ban on using military force against another country, absent UN Security Council authorization or a genuine case of self‑defense, even when the leader is corrupt or repressive, as Maduro was.
Roth added that the operation has done little to address the underlying political dysfunction in Venezuela. “Trump removed only Maduro, leaving the regime’s structures of corruption and repression intact,” he observed. “Meanwhile, the seizure of Venezuela’s oil revenue undermines any claim that the intervention was intended to advance democracy, making the outcome a deep disappointment for the people of the country.”
Asked whether the world has entered a “might-is-right” era, Roth cautioned against such a sweeping conclusion. “That would be Trump’s world, but a significant part of the world disagrees,” he said. “While Putin may have welcomed Trump’s assertion of a might-makes-right world as he moved against Venezuela—even though he lost an ally in Maduro—few accept his claim that this justifies the invasion of Ukraine. The global opposition to that illegal act of aggression remains strong.”
Double‑edged sword
Trump’s assertive, almost gunboat‑style approach to global affairs has presented leaders such as Vladimir Putin with both opportunity and peril. While intensified US pressure on Venezuela has diminished Moscow’s sway over Caracas, it also gives Russia a rhetorical opening to portray its own actions in Ukraine as part of a world in which established norms are increasingly contested.
When asked what the invasion of Venezuela might mean for other conflicts and flashpoints — from Taiwan and Ukraine to the Middle East — Human Rights Watch’s former executive director warned that the implications extend far beyond a single theatre of war. “I don’t think it will make any practical difference for Ukraine,” Roth said, suggesting that Moscow’s calculus about Kyiv is driven more by geopolitics than by precedent alone. “Nor should it affect Taiwan much, since Beijing doesn’t treat Taiwan as another state but rather as a breakaway part of China.”
Roth went on to caution that a world in which power outweighs law could have dangerous ripple effects, particularly if other states invoke the Venezuelan episode to justify aggressive behaviour. As he put it: “I do think a might‑makes‑right world would have ripple effects.” He sketched out a series of hypothetical scenarios: “Rwanda would claim that it is justified in invading the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo for its minerals, using its M23 proxy rebels. The United Arab Emirates would argue it is justified in maintaining access to Sudanese gold by supporting the genocidal Rapid Support Forces. Ethiopia might invade Eritrea to secure its long‑sought Red Sea port. And we might see Israel annex the Occupied Palestinian Territory and even forcibly expel Palestinians.”
“A might‑makes‑right world is a dangerous one,” Roth concluded, underscoring the peril of eroding the legal constraints that have long governed interstate conduct — constraints now strained not just by unilateral force in Venezuela, but by a broader rethinking of how power and law intersect in the 21st century.
International response
Hours after news of the Venezuelan president’s capture appeared unceremoniously on President Trump’s Truth Social platform, reactions in allied capitals were swift but cautious. The UK prime minister and European partners initially issued carefully hedged statements, wary of provoking the mercurial occupant of the Oval Office. Diplomacy, at least in the immediate aftermath, was visible in full force.
That caution, however, evaporated once Trump turned his attention to Greenland, a semi‑autonomous Danish territory. European leaders quickly pivoted from measured language to explicit support for Danish sovereignty. Copenhagen and Nuuk were unequivocal — Greenland’s future would be decided by its people and Denmark, not the United States. Capitals from Paris to Berlin echoed that stance, stressing that territorial integrity is non‑negotiable, even as ideological divides between Washington and its closest European allies grow sharper.
When asked about the international reaction to the invasion of Venezuela, Roth did not mince words. He reiterated that Trump’s operation was a clear breach of the United Nations Charter and international law, which allow the use of force against another state only with Security Council authorisation or in response to an actual or imminent armed attack — conditions that were absent in this case. “Other governments should unequivocally condemn it,” Roth argued, noting that while some European capitals have done so, others have been more tepid in their criticism. “I understand why. Their foremost concern is keeping Trump on board to defend Ukraine. But they should recognise that Trump’s invasion of Venezuela weakens the international law that makes Putin’s invasion of Ukraine an illegal act of aggression,” he concluded.
