By Cliff Potts, CSO, and Editor-in-Chief of WPS News

Introduction: Framing the Analysis

This is not a recap. The military operation in Venezuela has already passed from news into historical record. What follows is an institutional analysis of how the executive justified its actions, how those justifications fail under both U.S. and international law, and what the episode reveals about the current dysfunction of American governance.

This analysis does not center on an individual officeholder. It examines a system — an executive apparatus that now routinely substitutes unilateral action for lawful process, and narrative construction for legal authority.

The Executive’s Public Justification

The administration’s public explanation relied on three interlocking claims.

First, the operation was framed as an extension of law enforcement. Military force was presented as a tool to assist in the apprehension of an indicted foreign leader, implicitly recasting armed intervention as a policing function rather than an act of war.

Second, the action was justified as necessary for national protection. References to drug trafficking, terrorism, and threats to U.S. citizens were used to establish urgency and moral clarity, despite the absence of any armed attack against the United States.

Third, the executive described the intervention as temporary and managerial, asserting that U.S. authorities would oversee governance and economic stabilization until a “proper transition” could be arranged.

Individually, each claim strains legal credibility. Taken together, they form a justification that collapses under scrutiny.

Rhetorical Architecture: How Force Was Reframed

The executive’s language was not accidental. It followed a deliberate rhetorical structure designed to minimize legal resistance.

Criminal-justice terminology was used to sanitize military action. Words associated with arrest, indictment, and justice displaced terms like invasion, occupation, or hostilities. This linguistic shift encourages the public to evaluate the action through a domestic law-and-order lens rather than through constitutional or international frameworks.

Moral threat amplification played a central role. By labeling the target as criminal and dangerous, the executive pre-emptively argued proportionality. Once the adversary is framed as an outlaw menace, questions about sovereignty and legal process appear secondary, even obstructive.

Most revealing was the treatment of sovereignty as conditional. Statements about managing or “running” the country until it was deemed safe reframed Venezuelan self-rule as a privilege contingent on U.S. approval. This is not the language of international law; it is the language of trusteeship and control.

Finally, the executive maintained strategic ambiguity regarding the scope of force. Vague references to potential ground involvement allowed flexibility while avoiding concrete commitments that would trigger immediate legal challenges.

Domestic Illegality: U.S. Law and Constitutional Limits

Under U.S. law, the introduction of armed forces into hostilities is tightly constrained. The War Powers Resolution permits such action only pursuant to a declaration of war, specific congressional authorization, or a national emergency created by an attack on the United States.

None of these conditions were met.

Congress did not authorize the operation. No declaration of war exists. The United States was not under armed attack by Venezuela. Rebranding the action as law enforcement assistance does not negate these facts. Military force against another sovereign state cannot be laundered through criminal-justice language to escape statutory limits.

The constitutional implications are severe. By acting unilaterally, the executive displaced Congress from its core role in decisions of war and peace. This is not a procedural oversight; it is a direct violation of the separation of powers.

The attempt to blur military and law-enforcement authority reflects a deeper institutional problem: an executive branch increasingly unwilling to recognize legal boundaries when they constrain desired outcomes.

International Illegality: Breach of the UN Charter

International law is equally clear. The United Nations Charter prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, except in narrowly defined circumstances.

Self-defense under Article 51 requires an armed attack. Criminal activity, drug trafficking, or political hostility does not meet this standard. An indictment issued by one state does not confer authority to invade another.

Nor was there any authorization from the UN Security Council. The operation therefore stands outside the accepted legal frameworks governing the use of force.

The executive’s assertion of transitional control further compounds the violation. Once a state claims authority to manage another country’s governance and economy, the action ceases to resemble a limited operation and instead assumes the character of occupation.

The Structural Logic Behind the Action

The justification followed a predictable sequence.

First, the foreign leader was stripped of political legitimacy and recast solely as a criminal figure. Second, military action was reframed as enforcement rather than war. Third, legal constraints were implicitly dismissed as technicalities. Finally, control over governance was presented as benevolent stabilization rather than domination.

This sequence reflects an institutional logic in which legality is treated as an obstacle to be navigated rather than a framework to be obeyed.

Why Silence and Normalization Mattered

The success of this approach depended on speed and narrative saturation. By moving quickly and framing the action in moral terms, the executive crowded out sustained legal debate. Media coverage, conditioned by years of normalized executive overreach, largely followed the administration’s framing rather than interrogating its legality.

This silence was not incidental. It was part of the environment that allowed the action to proceed without meaningful resistance.

Conclusion: A Systemic Failure

The Venezuelan operation is not an aberration. It is the logical outcome of a system in which executive power has steadily detached itself from law.

It represents a violation of domestic statutes, a breach of international norms, and a further erosion of constitutional balance. More importantly, it reveals how easily institutions now accept illegality when it is packaged as necessity and framed as order.

The danger is not confined to this single case. It lies in the precedent it sets — that force may be used first, justified later, and normalized permanently.

That is not a failure of one leader. It is a failure of the system itself.

APA Citations

Heavey, S., & Winter, J. (2026, January 4). Trump says U.S. will run Venezuela after raid captures Maduro. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/venezuelas-maduro-custody-trump-says-us-will-run-country-2026-01-04/

Reuters. (2026, January 3). Was the U.S. capture of Venezuela’s president legal? Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/was-us-capture-venezuelas-president-legal-2026-01-03/

Reuters. (2026, January 4). Maduro is out but his top allies still hold power in Venezuela. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/maduro-is-out-its-unclear-who-is-running-venezuela-2026-01-04/

PBS NewsHour. (2026, January 3). Maduro’s capture and claim that U.S. will run Venezuela raise legal questions. PBS NewsHour. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/maduros-capture-and-trumps-claim-that-u-s-will-run-venezuela-raise-new-legal-questions

United Nations. (1945). Charter of the United Nations. United Nations. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter

United States Congress. (1973). War Powers Resolution, 50 U.S.C. §§ 1541–1548. U.S. Government Publishing Office. https://www.congress.gov

Discover more from WPS News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.