'No credible basis': Experts say US law doesn't justify Venezuela attack Submitted by Syma Mohammed on Mon, 01/05/2026 - 19:18 There is no legal basis for attack on Venezuela or abduction of Nicolas Maduro, but there is a historical precedent Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro is escorted by US law enforcement officials through the Downtown Manhattan Heliport in New York City, on 5 January 2026 (Adam Gray/Reuters) Off The US attack on Venezuela over the weekend was a clear violation of international law, United Nations experts have concluded . However, President Donald Trump has justified the actions under US law. Does the US Constitution provide legal grounds for the administration to behave as it has in the oil-rich Latin American country? Middle East Eye spoke to US law and constitutional experts to understand whether there is any legal basis for the bombing of Venezuela and the abduction of the Venezuelan president, Nicholas Maduro, and his wife, Cilia Flores, as the face drug-trafficking charges in the US. Did US have legal grounds to attack Venezuela? J Wells Dixon , senior staff attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) is an expert in US national security, foreign policy, and international law. He told MEE that the US’s actions were in violation of both its own laws as well as international ones. “There’s also a lot of inconsistency in statements from the current administration about what's happened and the rationale," he said. “However, there's no credible basis under US law for an invasion of Venezuela,” he added. He said the Trump administration would have required congressional authorisation for the attack, which they failed to get, adding that not only were members of Congress not notified of an attack, they were assured it would not happen. 'There’s no credible basis under US law for an invasion of Venezuela' - J Wells Dixon, Center for Consitutional Rights “There's no authority to do that, and there's no other legal basis that would purport to provide that kind of authority. “For example, the government of Venezuela did not launch an armed attack on the US, which would give a US president legal authority to repel the attack,” Dixon said. Eugene R Fidell is a senior research scholar at Yale Law School, with expertise in military law. He also agreed that the US’s attack on Venezuela was illegal. “My own view is that a declaration of law was required, and since Congress enacted no declaration of war beforehand, this was an unconstitutional act under American law," Fidell said. Fidell said he couldn’t find anything in the US Constitution that would provide grounds for bombing Venezuela. “We were not attacked,” he said. “Drug smuggling is not an invasion. This was not an act of self-defence. Only Congress has the right to declare war, and they didn’t do so." “The attack is illegal under both US law and international law.” But, Ingrid Brunk , a scholar of international law at Vanderbilt Law and the Helen Strong Curry chair in international law, views the whole event through a different lens. She told MEE on the phone on Tuesday that Trump’s capture of Maduro did not violate the Constitution because decades of historical precedent exists. She believes it is critical to look at how Trump approached the attack on Venezuela, which she believes comes from a "law enforcement" rather than a "war" angle. While the US Constitution vests Congress with the power to declare war, and the president with the power as commander in chief, she explained that it has raised difficult questions of when force is used abroad. Trump's Venezuela oil gambit depends on a 'swashbuckling' attitude the market lacks Read More » “Does the president need congressional authorisation or not? Whatever the framers of the Constitution meant in the 18th century, there have been a very large number of uses of force by presidents in both administrations that have not sought congressional authorisation in that way.” She says that Trump not seeking authorisation from Congress is nothing new, especially when it comes to a “one-off kind of surgical strike”. “Go in, take out Maduro and bring him back for law enforcement purposes. You might argue - and many scholars do - that this is something for which he should have sought congressional authorisation. But there is a very long history of presidents taking these actions without congressional authorisation.” She cited President Barack Obama’s strikes on Libya in 2011 as one such example. Brunk said that the grounds of discourse would change if the US puts troops on the ground. Then it would move from a matter of law enforcement to military involvement. The introduction of a long-term military engagement in Venezuela would raise questions regarding the War Powers Act. “I think this is why we haven't heard much from President Trump about putting boots on the ground. This is classic US practice. We bomb, and this limits US casualties and political pushback in the United States.” Abduction and US trial Dixon from the CCR said the abduction of both Maduro and his wife violated both domestic and international law. “There is precedent for the US to apprehend and arrest individuals overseas and bring them to the US for criminal prosecution with consent from the foreign country," Dixon said. The US and Venezuela do have an extradition treaty in place since 1922, which is protective of Venezuelan nationals. But non-nationals have been extradited to the US in the past. The US did not seek extradition or consent through any legal process regarding the Maduros. 'The mere fact that he (Maduro) was kidnapped and illegally brought to the US will not prevent the criminal trial from going forward' - Ingrid Brunk, scholar of international law “It does not appear that there was consent here. Venezuela did not consent, in any respect, to what happened,” he added. On Saturday, Maduro pleaded not guilty in a New York City court to four counts of narco-terrorism conspiracy; cocaine importation conspiracy; possession of machine guns and destructive devices; and conspiracy to possess machine guns and destructive devices against the United States. Flores and the couple's son are charged with trafficking drugs, and Flores is also accused of ordering kidnappings and murders, and accepting bribes. Maduro was first indicted by the US in 2020 . Brunk said that the US court system would not be concerned with how Maduro and Flores were brought into the country, as there was, once again, a historical precedent. “There is a widely accepted doctrine that allows criminal trials to go forward, even if the defendant was kidnapped or otherwise brought illegally into the US,” Brunk said. She said this was not unique to the US and recounted how Israelis abducted Nazi criminal Adolf Eichmann from Argentina and took him to Israel for trial. “Basically, the courts said it was illegal to kidnap him (Eichmann) and bring him here, but now that he's here, it doesn't mean we have to stop the trial. The mere fact that he (Maduro) was kidnapped and illegally brought to the US will not prevent the criminal trial from going forward." Brunk adds that the US is not alone in how it handles cases like this. Fidell agreed that the US can proceed with the trial. “Under current law, it doesn't matter whether the Maduros were kidnapped or given a free plane ride in terms of whether they can be tried in federal court. US law doesn’t make an issue of how we acquire an arrest. Courts have not prevented prosecutions based on that.” Can the US prosecute a head of state? Fidell expects more contention around whether Maduro will enjoy immunity as a head of state. “I expect that to be litigated in the federal court, before trial. The Trump administration's position, obviously, is that he doesn't have immunity [because they don’t view him as the head of state]." Venezuela extends the lesson of Gaza into the western hemisphere Read More » Dixon said it is illegal to try a sitting head of state in the US, as heads of state normally enjoy immunity from arrest and prosecution under international law. Brunk said that a legal precedent for Maduro’s case is that of Manuel Noriega, who was an unelected leader of Panama. After the US invaded Panama in 1989, Noriega was brought to the US and indicted for drug smuggling and money laundering, among other charges. In court, Noriega argued that he had immunity from trial as a head of state, while the US courts argued they did not recognise him as the country's leader. Noriega was, however, considered a prisoner of war under the Geneva Conventions. Noriega was then tried, convicted and served out a term in a US prison before being extradited to France and then ultimately back to Panama. Brunk said that if Maduro can prove he is a prisoner of war, he would be given protection under the Geneva Conventions, which are binding in the US. “The US is not going to characterise this as a war. They're characterising it as a law enforcement action," Brunk said, but the US have so far avoided putting troops on the ground. “I think this is Trump's calculus here. If he can control the Venezuelan government to his satisfaction without using any additional force, it doesn't look like a war.” The Monroe Doctrine Since the attack on Venezuela, the Trump administration has been repeatedly invoking the Monroe Doctrine, which established the western hemisphere as under the US sphere of influence. "This is the western hemisphere. This is where we live and we're not going to allow the western hemisphere to be a base of operation for adversaries, competitors, and rivals of the United States," US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in a TV interview during the weekend. But Fidell said the Monroe Doctrine has no legal teeth, and it is "simply a statement of policy, which no one other than the United States accepts". “It's like using the phrase manifest destiny, that it was inevitable that the US would expand to the Pacific Ocean. That's a nice narrative, but it's not a statement of law." Oona Hathaway is a professor of international law at Yale, director of the institution's Center for Global Legal Challenges, and president-elect of the American Society of International Law. She told MEE by email that it should be "troubling to those who care about peace in the world that the US was looking to revive the Monroe Doctrine. “The claim that the United States is reviving the Monroe Doctrine amounts to a declaration that the Trump Administration intends to ignore the United Nations Charter," Hathaway said. “That should be troubling to anyone who cares about peace and security in the world.” US Politics News Post Date Override 0 Update Date Mon, 05/04/2020 - 21:19 Update Date Override 0