Irrelevant Law, Domestic Law, Imperial Law? U.S. Foreign Policy and the Justification for the Invasion of Venezuela

This blog post was translated from the original Spanish version by using AI tools.
If you encounter any errors, please contact us.

Irrelevant Law: U.S. Foreign Policy Under Trump

“I don’t need international law.”

Donald Trump, interview with The New York Times, January 11, 2026.

In the context of U.S. foreign policy during the second Trump administration, international law appears to be an irrelevant factor. In Greenland, Venezuela, and Iran, the United States (U.S.) has used or threatened to use military force in a manifestly illegal manner. Of course, the U.S.’s illegal use of armed force is not a new development, given its long list of invasions in Grenada, Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. But what does seem new is the total absence of legal justifications and discourse in its foreign policy. This is particularly evident in the way the U.S. conducts itself in the realm of peacebuilding. Traditionally, the peacebuilding and state-building policies of the countries of the Global North have been based on two normative pillars as part of their liberal ideology: the establishment of a capitalist market economy, on the one hand, and a normative commitment to democracy, human rights, and the rule of law, on the other. But under Trump, the U.S. has emphasized the economic aspect and neglected the normative one.

The peace plan for Gaza, approved by the United Nations Security Council, is the most obvious example of this shift in direction. In this case, the solution for peace in Gaza is presented almost exclusively as a matter of economic development, achieved through private investment and deregulation. Political issues—above all, the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination—are ignored. Governance becomes a technocratic project, with no reference to democracy or the rule of law. This paints a picture of how the Trump administration conceives of peacebuilding in Gaza, in particular, and possibly in other future situations: economic development is presented as a panacea, carried out by business entities and facilitated through deregulation and private investment. Unlike classical liberal peacebuilding, it is characterized by a total lack of commitment to normative values such as democracy and human rights. It reflects a normative nihilism, which is evident in the Administration’s general attitude toward international law.

Domestic Law: The Official Justification for the Invasion

In the context of Operation Absolute Resolve, the situation is more complex. On the one hand, as shown by the Legal Counsel’s Memorandum on the operation, international law was consciously excluded from the White House’s legal considerations (pp. 5–7). However, on the other hand, normative values—and above all, U.S. domestic criminal law—did play an important role in official discourse. In particular, Secretary of State Marco Rubio has emphasized the commitment to ensuring a democratic transition and free and fair elections in Venezuela. Of course, these promises ring hollow given U.S. support for Delcy Rodríguez’s new regime. However, it is worth emphasizing that the invasion is also presented as an ideological project, not merely guided by U.S. national interests.

The most significant and troubling aspect of the justifications has been domestic criminal law. For example, the aforementioned memorandum describes the operation as the use of the armed forces in support of a police operation. Furthermore, the Administration has consistently described the operation as an action against drug trafficking, supported by the federal criminal charges against Maduro, similar to the capture of Manuel Noriega in 1990. As a result, Maduro is being prosecuted by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. From an international perspective, this justification is surprising. Caracas, of course, is not part of the Southern District of New York nor is it under U.S. jurisdiction. In reality, this argument based on domestic law weakens the legal defense of the operation, since both the application of U.S. law in Venezuela and the prosecution of a foreign head of state are clearly illegal under international law. To understand this, one must view this argument as part of the U.S.’s neo-imperial aspirations in the Western Hemisphere.

Imperial Law: Venezuela and the Monroe Doctrine

The legal justification based on arguments of domestic criminal law fits into the context of the Trump Administration’s efforts to reaffirm U.S. control over the Americas. These efforts became most evident in Trump’s corollary to the Monroe Doctrine—also known as the Donroe Doctrine—presented in the 2025 National Security Strategy (p. 15). The invasion of Venezuela is part of the implementation of this strategy.

For example, the U.S. has emphasized that this operation has served to expel foreign adversaries from “our hemisphere.” Furthermore, in hindsight, it is clear that the U.S. considers itself the ultimate arbiter of what constitutes the benefit and well-being of the Venezuelan people. Not only have they pressured the transitional government to lift the Chavista restrictions on foreign investment in the oil sector, but they have also demanded that it submit a monthly budget to the U.S. for approval. It is not surprising that Secretary Rubio has praised the fact that a significant portion of this budget is used to purchase U.S. medicines and equipment.

Given all this, the justification based on domestic law makes sense. For the Trump Administration, just as during the Cold War, it is the U.S. that determines what happens in the Western Hemisphere, and therefore U.S. domestic law is an appropriate criterion for evaluating it. Thus, U.S. domestic law becomes an instrument of imperial domination over the “American” hemisphere.

What do these observations mean? First, they emphasize the important role of the region’s states and institutions in the Venezuelan transition (including the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in San José). The Trump administration has shown that it does not regard international law as a normative standard or as a limit on its power. Therefore, the U.S. cannot be relied upon to pressure the Rodríguez regime and ensure a genuine transition to democracy. Pressure and support for the Venezuelan people must come from the region, from neighboring states, from regional institutions, and from social movements.

The author thanks Vanessa Vanegas for her comments.