As I wrote yesterday, the 'international law' smokescreen being used to obscure the righteousness of Trump's capture of Venezuela's phony president, Nicholas Maduro, is a bunch of hooey.
International law is a convenient fiction. It is the name we give to agreements and norms that can be enforced by the will of powerful states, which, in most cases, agree to be bound by a set of rules to reduce violence and friction in a system that would otherwise be anarchic.
But these rules are "law" in name only, since enforcing laws requires a sovereign with the ability and willingness to do so. Instead, we live in a world where Somalia now heads the United Nations Security Council.
Still, Democrats across the country have joined forces with Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, and the United Nations—all scoundrels well known for their adherence to international law and commitment to a peaceful world—to decry Trump's arrest of Maduro as "illegal."
Which begs the question: even if we believed that international law was a real thing, would this operation have been illegal?
Excellent point made by The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board about those who are screaming that President Trump "violated international law" by going into Venezuela and nabbing Nicolas Maduro
— Ryan Saavedra (@RyanSaavedra) January 6, 2026
The country's legitimate president, Edmundo Gonzales, openly supported the operation pic.twitter.com/4CKpZZy05i
The answer, unsurprisingly, is "No," both by US and international law, and also according to the standards that Democrats themselves have set.
Here's the grifter known as Chris Van Hollen in 2024 declaring that Maduro absolutely lost the election, is not legitimate, and has to be removed from power. https://t.co/p8Ayyq5yDx pic.twitter.com/k4rwJCjyFt
— MAZE (@mazemoore) January 4, 2026
After all, Nicholas Maduro was not the president of Venezuela, according to the very Democrats who are now complaining that he was illegally removed.
First, is the U.S. intervention a violation of Venezuelan sovereignty when the country’s legitimate authority consents to it? Edmundo González, elected by the Venezuelan people in 2024, has spoken in support of the operation. The Maduro regime, which stole that election, objects. The bipartisan U.S. position is that Mr. Maduro wasn’t the legitimate President.
Mr. Maduro welcomed Hezbollah and used Cuban troops to impose his rule on Venezuela. The regime in Havana says 32 Cubans died defending Mr. Maduro. As our contributor Eugene Kontorovich writes, “It would be odd to read [Article] 2(4) as allowing foreign powers to use troops to prop up an illegitimate, unelected dictator, but not to remove him.”
Second, does this qualify as U.S. self-defense against the Venezuelan regime’s drug smuggling and use of migration as a weapon? The U.S. also claimed self-defense as grounds to arrest Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega in 1989.
In that instance, a Justice Department opinion by Bill Barr, later the Attorney General, found that “Article 2(4) relates to one of the most fundamentally political questions that faces a nation—when to use force in its international relations.” That isn’t for a court, unaccountable to the people, to decide.
The herd of instant analysts also claim the U.S. operation will give Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping license in Ukraine and Taiwan. “Think of what Russia and China just learned,” Rep. Jim Himes, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” As if Moscow and Beijing don’t already trample international law when it gets in their way.
President Xi isn’t waiting on a new legal interpretation to seize Taiwan; that’s what his military buildup is for. China has ignored the international ruling against its island grabs in the South China Sea. Vetoes by China and Russia have neutered the U.N. Security Council. The International Criminal Court has become a weapon against the U.S. and Israel when they fight terrorism.
The very same Democrats who are whining that Trump had no right to capture Maduro were, a bit more than a year ago, foursquare behind a policy to arrest Maduro as a narco-trafficker and illegitimate leader who stole an election.
On January 10, 2025, the Biden-Harris administration put a $25 million bounty on Nicolás Maduro for information leading to his arrest or conviction.
— Eric Adams (@ericadamsfornyc) January 4, 2026
Public safety is not a political game.
You do not label someone a narco-dictator one year and then pretend he is no longer a… https://t.co/KC8qzUFTLc pic.twitter.com/iPHSm2DppQ
You do not label someone a narco-dictator one year and then pretend he is no longer a threat the next simply because a different president is in office. That is cynical and irresponsible.
Maduro’s drugs have killed thousands of Americans and continue to endanger our children. Imagine being the parents of 2-year-old Nicholas Feliz Dominici, who died from fentanyl poisoning in a Bronx daycare, and watching this political theater.
America is safer today because Maduro is no longer in power.
Welcome to New York, Nicolás.
Of course, when Democrats bleat about the "law," they aren't using the term in any sense recognized by ordinary people. The "law" is whatever they say it is at any moment in time, and changes by the minute.
If the Democrats of 2024 believed that Maduro was not the legitimate president of Venezuela and that Edmundo González was legitimately elected, then what Trump did was at the invitation of the current president of Venezuela. One sovereign asking another to help free his country.
Bakari Sellers: “I’m tired of the president of the United States he chooses Caracas over rural health hospitals, right? He chooses Venezuelans over soybean farmers…”
— RedWave Press (@RedWave_Press) January 6, 2026
Batya Ungar-Sargon: “Did you oppose the Biden administration putting a bounty on Maduro's head as well?”… pic.twitter.com/MaI5bCYw4W
Batya Ungar-Sargon: “Did you oppose the Biden administration putting a bounty on Maduro's head as well?”
Bakari Sellers: “No. Maduro's a horrible person. He needs to be shackled.”
Caroline Downey: “Trump just acted on it.”
Batya Ungar-Sargon: “Exactly. What do you mean? Like you approve of Biden putting the bounty on his head, but not of Trump actually going out and arresting the guy.”
NUKED!
Of course, using the words "Democrats" and "believe" in the same sentence is dangerous, since Democrats don't believe in anything remotely like "truth" in the first place. Words are weapons, not a means to communicate about anything real. The very concept of reality is anathema to them, since it makes it harder to shift positions on a dime.
How does anybody take seriously a group of people who now claim that Putin and Xi have, until now, been held back by a fear that they might break international law? Did Trump's removal of Maduro just empower Xi to start a buildup to invade Taiwan? I think he was already doing that.
This is the funniest possible response from the left-wing commentariat.
— Eric Schmitt (@Eric_Schmitt) January 4, 2026
If you legitimately believe that China's respect for "international law" is what's preventing them from invading Taiwan, I have a bridge in Shanghai to sell you. https://t.co/LVUMXwAHqd pic.twitter.com/DArfC08hGx
Perhaps Putin will feel free to invade Ukraine now? Hmm. I think that already happened.
Maybe Hamas will invade Israel to commit horrific acts of terrorism? Gee, I think they did.
International law hasn't prevented gray zone warfare against the United States; using force against those committing it is the only way to stop it.
A commitment to the idea of international law in the way that Democrats describe it is as effective as making schools "gun-free zones." All you are doing is ensuring that the bad guys are able to do whatever they want without fear of consequences.
Editor’s Note: Do you enjoy Hot Air's conservative reporting that takes on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth.
Join Hot Air VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member