Following yesterday’s arrest of Maduro, politicians and pundits are debating the legality of the arrest and looking for an explanation of the actions taken by the Trump administration.  While I have my personal opinions, the following is a look at legal arguments for and against Donald Trump’s decision to order the arrest of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, supported by U.S. military operation used to assure the success and safety of the arresting team.  I have attempted to present the information as it has been reported by the media, legal experts, and the Trump administration.

Legal Arguments Against Arrest

 1. Violation of International Law- Many experts argue that the operation was an illegal use of force inside a sovereign nation without its consent.  Michael Schmitt, a former Air Force lawyer, said the operation was a “clear violation of international law.” (Lisa Mascaro, Joshua Goodman and Ben Finley, “Capture of Maduro and U.S. claim it will run Venezuela raise new legal questions,” The Associated Press)  The military strikes inside Caracas typically require either UN authorization, self‑defense justification, or host‑nation consent—none of which were present.

2. No Congressional Authorization–The U.S. Constitution gives Congress—not the president—the power to declare war.  Trump’s own chief of staff previously said that.  Congress was not notified before the operation, according to Secretary of State Marco Rubio. (Tom Hals and Andrew Goudsward,“Was the US capture of Venezuela’s president legal?” Reuters, January 3, 2026)

 3. Inconsistent Legal Justification—Experts note the administration blurred the line betweena law enforcement action (arresting an indicted individual), anda military regime‑change operation (Trump’s statements about “running” Venezuela and taking its oil).  Jeremy Paul of Northeastern University said:“You cannot say this was a law enforcement operation and then turn around and say now we need to run the country.” (Hals, Goudsward)

4. No Extradition Treaty or Legal Basis for Seizure–The U.S. has no extradition treaty with Venezuela.Mark Nevitt, former Navy attorney, said “I see no legal basis for us to go into another country and take a leader without an extradition treaty.” (Mascaro, Goodman, Finley)

 5. Precedent of Unlawful Targeted Killings/Strikes–The U.S. had already conducted 35 boat strikes, killing more than 115 people since September.  Many experts say this likely violated U.S. and international law. (Mascaro, Goodman, Finley)

Legal Arguments for Arrest (These are the justifications the Trump administration or its defenders have offered.)

 1. Maduro Was Under U.S. Indictment—Maduro had been indicted in New York on narcoterrorism, drug trafficking, and weapons charges in 2020.  The Justice Department requested military assistance to apprehend him. (Hals, Goudsward) Attorney General Pam Bondi said the defendants would “face the full wrath of American justice.” (Hall, Goudsword)  This frames the operation as a law enforcement action, not an act of war.

2. National Security Justification–The administration claimed Maduro supported drug cartels designated as terrorist organizations, responsible for thousands of U.S. deaths from illegal drug use. (Hall, Goudsword)Under this theory, the president can act to protect U.S. national security without prior congressional approval.

3. Precedent for Limited Military Actions Without Congress— Presidents of both parties have used military force without congressional authorization whenthe action was limited in scope andtied to national interests.  Examples that are often cited includeReagan in Grenada, Clinton in Kosovo, Obama in Libya and George H. W. Bush in Panama.  The administration may argue this operation fits that pattern.

4. Maduro’s Status as an “Illegitimate Leader” —Some international actors and the U.S. government had previously recognized Juan Guaidó as the legitimate president of Venezuela.  If Maduro is not recognized as head of state, the argument goes, the U.S. did not violate sovereignty by seizing him. 

Other Factors

President Trump has been clear that the United States will run the country and rebuild the oil industry in Venezuela.  How can this be accomplished? Who benefits the most from this plan?

China and Cuba have been major importers of Venezuelan oil.  How will the United States deal with the complications in oil trade? 

The United States entered a foreign county and arrested its leader.  Does this mean that the invasion of the Ukraine by Russia can be justified?  Can China reclaim Tawain?  Can Netanyahu be arrested by another country and presented to the United Nations since he is currently wanted for war crimes by the World Court?  Can a country be justified in kidnapping President Trump if they don’t like him?

Summary

There are so many questions that this incident has raised.  How will Congress react?  Should Americans allow their government to act as the sole authority on issues that impact our nation?  There are many opinions.  As is apparent from the above arguments for and against the legality of Maduro’s arrest, the weight of the legal arguments makes it apparent that the arrest, supported by the military, was illegal.  The arguments supporting the administration are justifications, not legal interpretations.

One the issues that the Trump administration campaigned on was the alleged out of control drug problem.    Following President Trump’s lead, his Secretary of Defense (War) has declared a full-scale war on “narco terrorists.”  Since July, Secretary Hegseth has ordered twenty-one strikes against the narco terrorists, blowing up boats in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean that were allegedly transporting illegal drugs to the United States.  Nothing new!  The war began under Richard Nixon.

As a police officer more than 50 years ago, I arrested drug users and dealers.  I was often frustrated by the way the legal system handled many of these drug cases.  I saw people die from overdosing!  I wanted stronger penalties for those who sold drugs.  Over the past decades various efforts have been made to curb drug abuse, with little or no apparent success.

The “War on Drugs”

In 1971, President Richard Nixon declared drug abuse “public enemy number one” and announced what would soon be known as the country’s “war on drugs”. The policy promised to cleanse streets of narcotics, dismantle trafficking networks, and deliver a safer environment for Americans.

Instead, according to estimates by the Center for American Progress, decades of punitive policing and militarized crackdowns left the U.S. with a record number of overdose deaths, one of the world’s highest incarceration rates, and more than $1 trillion spent, with little measurable impact on drug availability or demand.  The war on drugs helped reshape policing and criminal justice, disproportionately sweeping Black communities into prisons. Internationally, it fueled a parallel conflict across Latin America, where U.S. backed operations deepened cycles of corruption and organized crime. Today, overdose deaths driven by fentanyl have reached historic highs.

Nixon’s administration laid the groundwork for a punitive system, including new federal agencies, tougher penalties, and a rhetoric that framed drug use as a threat to national stability. The political logic behind the move was later revealed by John Ehrlichman, a Nixon aide, who in 2016 told a reporter that the administration saw two main “enemies” – the antiwar left and Black Americans. Since the government could not criminalize dissent or race, it instead associated “hippies” with marijuana and Black communities with heroin, and then heavily criminalized both. The aim, he said, was to disrupt and discredit those communities by raiding homes, arresting leaders, and vilifying them on the news.

The campaign intensified dramatically in the 1980s under President Ronald Reagan. The Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 toughened sentences for marijuana possession.

Through the 1990s and 2000s, successive administrations upheld these approaches. Bill Clinton’s 1994 crime bill expanded federal funding for prisons, led to more aggressive policing, and introduced a controversial “three-strikes” approach– a mandatory life sentence for a third violent felony conviction.

Not much changed under the Bush and Obama administrations. It was not until the 2010s that the conversation around drug use started to change, especially as cannabis legalization expanded, and the opioid crisis – driven by prescription painkillers – showed that punishment couldn’t curb addiction.  “The War on Drugs turned out to be more of a war on America’s poor than an effective solution to rampant drug abuse in the United States.”

The war on drugs did not remain limited to the US and its borders. In the 1980s, Washington funded and trained military and police forces across Latin America to fight drug trafficking at its source.  In Colombia, the US invested at least $10 billion from 2000 to the present under what was known as Plan Colombia, according to the Latin America Working Group.

According to Colombian human rights organizations and Columbia’s Truth Commission, while the government succeeded in weakening some armed groups, coca cultivation eventually returned to record levels, but civilians paid a high price. Between 1985 and 2018, an estimated 450,000 people were killed in the conflicts involving the cocaine trade.

In Mexico, a government offensive launched in 2006, supported by US intelligence and equipment, caused a wave of cartel fragmentation and turf wars. Since then, more than 460,000 people have been killed, according to the Council on Foreign Relations, and tens of thousands more have disappeared. Cartels diversified into extortion, fuel theft and human smuggling, while corruption spread among police forces as well as local governments. (This section on the Drug Wars is edited from Farah Najjar’s article in El Jazzar, published On 4 Dec 2025.)

A Real War?

Today, the US continues to carry out military operations targeting alleged traffickers. More than 83 people have been killed in 21 known military strikes.  The U.S. alleges that these are drug smuggling vessels.

Currently, the Trump administration appears poised for military action against Venezuela over accusations that the South American nation’s government is driving narcotics trafficking into the U.S.   Could Secretary Hegseth be right?  Should the U. S. declare a real war that should be fought on all fronts, whether in drug producing nations, on the high seas, or here in the United States?   Just a thought!! What could go wrong!

In a declared war, soldiers (police officers) would not have to allow for the rule of law.  Law enforcement officers could “take out” those that they believe are narco terrorists.    No need to make an arrest.  There would be no requirements for due process or a right to trial.  Justice would be served on the street.  Speedy and final.  The drug war can be won if only Americans would give full war powers to police officers!  Kill the foot soldiers.  These are frightening thoughts!

The Real Solution

The US has continued to fail in treating addiction as a public health issue. As enforcement ramped up, investment in prevention treatment, and mental health care fell behind. Instead of reducing use, the environment helped drive people into other forms of consumption.  Today, the US faces its deadliest drug crisis ever.  According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, there are more than 100,000 overdose deaths each year, largely driven by synthetic opioids like fentanyl. Overdose is now the leading cause of death for Americans aged 18–44.

To address the US drug problem, there needs to be recognition that a war of arrest and punishment has limits.  The root causes of alcohol and other drug addictions must be addressed.  Treatment and recovery programs, to treat the disorder through public health initiatives, are essential. 

Community engagement where citizens learn to trust their government officials and share information regarding illicit drug use should be improved.  Communities need to find their own way to reduce the demand for illicit drugs.  Government policies (federal, state, and local) must send the same message. 

These strategies aim to reduce overdose deaths, improve treatment availability, and disrupt the drug supply chain, ultimately addressing the broader issues that contribute to the drug crisis in the United States.  Some of these issues deal with poverty, associated with a low minimum wage.  Too many jobs that do not pay enough to support a single person, and certainly not a family.  Other issues include the need to rebuild our mental health support network and strengthen our drug rehabilitation programs.

We DON’T need a war!  We need a socially based strategy to address the root causes.