The United States’ military intervention in Venezuela, culminating in the capture of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, has provoked sharp condemnation from the United Nations and raised profound questions about the erosion of international norms governing the use of force.

On Saturday, President Trump announced that American special forces had seized Mr. Maduro in a predawn operation in Caracas, following airstrikes on military and port facilities. The president described the action as a “law enforcement operation” to apprehend an individual indicted in the United States on narcoterrorism charges dating to 2020. He further stated that the United States would temporarily “run” Venezuela to oversee a transition of power and modernize its oil infrastructure, the world’s largest proven reserves.

United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres expressed deep alarm, calling the operation a “dangerous precedent” that risked broader implications for regional stability. In a statement, Mr. Guterres reiterated that the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state violates Article 2(4) of the U.N. Charter. The president of the General Assembly, Annalena Baerbock, emphasized that the charter is “not an optional document.”

International law experts were unequivocal in their assessments. Mary Ellen O’Connell, a professor at Notre Dame Law School, described the removal of Mr. Maduro as effectively a “kidnapping” in breach of core U.N. principles. Geoffrey Robertson, a prominent human rights lawyer and former president of a U.N. war crimes court, argued that the strikes constituted a prohibited act under the charter, absent Security Council authorization, self-defense against an armed attack, or consent from Venezuela’s government—none of which, experts say, apply here.

The operation’s roots trace to escalating tensions. The Trump administration had accused Mr. Maduro of overseeing a criminal network linked to drug trafficking, though independent analyses, including from PolitiFact and drug policy experts, have noted that Venezuela plays a relatively minor role in narcotics flows to the United States compared with other routes. Since late 2025, American forces had conducted dozens of strikes on suspected drug-smuggling vessels in the Caribbean, killing over 100 people, many later identified as fishermen or civilians, according to Associated Press investigations.

Mr. Trump’s national security team—including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, and others—flanked him during his announcement at Mar-a-Lago. Mr. Rubio later clarified that the United States did not intend to govern Venezuela indefinitely but would maintain pressure, including an oil blockade, to ensure changes. Yet the president’s remarks about exploiting Venezuelan resources for American companies and seeking “reimbursement” for past nationalizations evoked historical echoes of U.S. interventions in Latin America.

Reactions from world leaders underscored the rift. Presidents Gustavo Petro of Colombia and Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of Brazil decried the action as aggression against Latin American sovereignty, with Mr. Petro calling for an emergency Security Council meeting. Mexico, Russia, Iran, Cuba, and Nicaragua issued strong condemnations, viewing it as a violation of international law. European allies, including British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, stressed the need to uphold the U.N. Charter while distancing themselves from involvement. Some Latin American leaders aligned with Mr. Trump praised the removal of Mr. Maduro, whom they regard as an autocrat responsible for economic collapse and mass emigration.

Inside Venezuela, Vice President Delcy Rodríguez assumed acting presidential powers, vowing resistance and accusing the United States of colonialism. Opposition figure María Corina Machado, a 2025 Nobel Peace Prize laureate, welcomed external pressure on Mr. Maduro but stopped short of endorsing military action. Analysts warn of potential chaos, with armed groups, including Colombian guerrillas and criminal syndicates, poised to exploit any power vacuum.

The episode has amplified concerns about unilateralism. Critics, including Democratic lawmakers and think tanks like the International Crisis Group, argue it sets a precedent that could embolden other powers, such as China toward Taiwan. Defenders in the administration frame it as enforcing justice against a indicted leader.

As Mr. Maduro arrived in New York to face charges, the Security Council prepared to convene. The crisis tests the post-World War II order at a moment when American leadership in multilateral institutions is already strained, following withdrawals from bodies like the Human Rights Council earlier in the Trump term.

The long-term consequences—for Venezuela’s stability, U.S. credibility, and the authority of the United Nations—remain uncertain, but the immediate fallout has deepened global divisions.