The Trump administration's 2026 military operation to detain Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro has ignited fierce debates about sovereignty and international law. Legal scholars warn the unprecedented action – framed as both law enforcement and military occupation – challenges constitutional principles and sets dangerous global precedents.
Constitutional Crossroads
Georgetown University's David Super notes the operation's dual characterization creates legal contradictions: "President Trump describing this as 'war' while claiming law enforcement authority violates Article I powers reserved for Congress." University of Michigan-Dearborn's Mitchel Sollenberger adds that executive overreach persists due to legislative inaction, despite clear constitutional breaches.
Sovereignty in Question
Both scholars reject Trump's claim of authority to "run" Venezuela. Sollenberger states: "No U.S. statute or constitutional provision permits governing foreign nations." Super emphasizes fiscal illegality: "Congress appropriated no funds for foreign governance – such spending violates appropriation clauses."
Immunity Challenges
Maduro's ongoing trial raises concerns about head-of-state immunity under international law. While U.S. courts may proceed with prosecution, Super predicts pretrial challenges regarding the legality of Maduro's capture under Fourth Amendment protections. Sollenberger warns the case establishes risky precedents for global leadership accountability.
