President Donald Trump has just done one of the most audacious acts of his presidency: sending a military squad to Venezuela and kidnapping President Nicolas Maduro and his wife. Without question, this is a clear violation of international law regarding the sovereignty of nations.

The U.S. was not at war with Venezuela, nor has Trump/Congress declared war. There is absolutely no justification under international law for this action. Regardless of whether Maduro was involved in drug trafficking that impacted the United States, there is no justification for kidnapping him, the president of another country.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio has called this a law enforcement action—arresting Maduro for his involvement in drug smuggling operations. But Maduro was the president of a sovereign country and thus has sovereign immunity and is not subject to American law enforcement. The Supreme Court has, however, upheld the prosecution of individuals once in the U.S. regardless of whether their presence in the U.S. was lawfully secured.

This is different from former President Barack Obama sending a squad into Afghanistan to kill Osama bin Laden. Bin Laden was not an elected official, let alone a high-ranking one, of a foreign country; he had no basis for immunity. And he was in charge of the group that planned the 9/11 attacks.

This is also not really similar to the arrest and extraterritorial abduction of Manuel Noriega, because Noriega was not the president of Panama, just the de facto leader, so his claim of immunity was weak.

Regarding the drug charges, even if true, they are subterfuge similar to the pretext of weapons of mass destruction that Bush and Cheney used when invading Iraq. In reality, Bush and Cheney decided to invade Iraq because they wanted to bring Iraq's vast oil reserves under the control of American companies. Which is the same reason why Trump really wanted to "take control" of Venezuela; it had little to do with stopping drug shipments.

After Maduro was kidnapped, the UN Security Council had an emergency session to discuss this matter. Trump and the U.S. were condemned by enemies and friends alike for violating international law. Many Latin American countries also spoke out against the action.

But at no time during the meeting. To my knowledge, has any country proposed any action against the U.S., such as sanctions? Although sanctions cannot be imposed by the UN against one of the permanent members of the Security Council (the U.S., Russia, China, France, or the UK) because of their veto power, they remain the traditional international "weapon" of choice. For example, sanctions were applied by the U.S. and EU against Russia after it invaded Ukraine; unfortunately, those sanctions have had no impact on Russian leader Vladimir Putin's prosecution of his assault.

The fact that sanctions may not be effective in changing a country's actions is no reason not to apply them. They do inflict pain and loss. Not to impose sanctions is to give a rogue country carte blanche to do what it pleases.

If countries are so scared of Trump that they won't do anything that really upsets him, the game is up. Not only will Trump continue to violate international law— he has said that he is considering action against Colombia and Greenland—but it gives other countries such as China and Israel the green light to violate international law.

Instead of the international community being ruled mostly by law, it will be ruled increasingly by power, and those with the greatest power will feel free to do what they feel they can get away with militarily. Trump aide Stephen Miller has stated that "brute force" governs the real world and is the Trump administration's preferred way of proceeding.

Clearly, though, what is good for the goose is not good for the gander; I can guarantee that if China attempted to do anything similar with Taiwan, Trump would rally U.S. allies to impose sanctions on China, if not attack it militarily, because he feels he is invincible.

The United Nations has never worked as its founders intended. Yes, it has provided a forum for countries to talk to each other. But that has not stopped any wars or made the world a safer place. The UN has adopted numerous conventions that set standards for everything from carbon emissions that impact climate change to preventing human trafficking. These conventions have been ratified by the vast majority of member-nations, but countries abide by them when it is convenient for them and pay no attention to them when it is not.

Clearly, we live in a world where Machiavelli would feel very comfortable. The vast majority of countries and people are governed in their actions not by spiritual laws/values, regardless of religion, that set the ethics of how man should interact with man, but instead are governed by their insecurities and all the emotions and cravings that flow from those insecurities, including a desire for power and wealth. That's just the way it is.

But even with all that, for the most part, relations between nations have been civilized and have followed a certain order that has been established. The exceptions, of course, have been the wars that have been fought and other actions such as Putin's initial invasion of Ukraine and Trump's kidnapping of Maduro.

The point of this article is not whether Maduro can be prosecuted once he is in the United States; U.S. law seems settled on that question. The point is whether Trump, or the leader of any country, can get away with violating international law without any repercussions. Bottom line, Trump should not be allowed by the international community to get away with what he has done.

____

Ronald L. Hirsch is a teacher, legal aid lawyer, survey researcher, nonprofit executive, consultant, composer, author, and volunteer. He is a graduate of Brown University and the University of Chicago Law School and the author of We Still Hold These Truths. Read more of his writing at www.PreservingAmericanValues.com

_____

©2026 The Fulcrum. Visit at thefulcrum.us. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.