Is what trump did to Venezuela illegal

1. What the administration says: an OLC opinion and a Noriega precedent

The Justice Department released a redacted OLC memo arguing that the military actions were “consistent with both domestic and international law,” framing the operation as a law‑enforcement seizure of indicted fugitives and relying on presidential Article II authorities and historical precedents such as the U.S. operation against Manuel Noriega ^{[1] [5]}.

2. Domestic legal fissures: war powers, Congress and contradictory signals

Even inside the United States, the move prompted sharp disputes over whether the president acted within constitutional limits: critics including legal scholars and some lawmakers argue the Constitution and statutes require congressional authorization for force abroad and that notification rules for covert and sensitive operations were not followed, while administration allies insist prior Congress approval was unnecessary ^{[6] [7] [8] [9]}.

3. International law experts: use of force and lack of lawful grounds

International‑law scholars record that the UN Charter prohibits the use of force against another state except in self‑defense or with Security Council authorization, and they stress that criminal charges do not by themselves justify cross‑border military seizure of a sitting head of state; absent consent or a Security Council resolution, many experts see the U.S. strikes as a presumptive violation of Article 2 of the UN Charter ^{[10] [11] [12]}.

4. The U.N., allies and global diplomatic backlash

An emergency U.N. Security Council meeting produced criticism from U.N. Secretary‑General António Guterres and several U.S. allies, with France and others publicly objecting to the operation as inconsistent with international law and U.S. statements that the U.S. would “run” Venezuela increasing alarm about sovereignty and precedent ^{[3] [4] [13]}.

5. Legal contradictions in the administration’s own framing

Observers note a muddle in the administration’s rhetoric and legal posture — treating the mission as both a targeted law‑enforcement arrest and as the opening move to long‑term control or nation‑building — which undermines claims that this was a narrow, lawful extradition or criminal enforcement operation and complicates the OLC’s conclusions ^{[11] [1] [2]}.

6. Practical accountability and plausible legal outcomes

Even where many legal scholars assert the strikes likely violated international law and possibly U.S. war‑powers rules, commentators also caution that international enforcement is limited and that practical consequences for the U.S. are uncertain; domestic courts have historically been reluctant to invalidate prosecutions based on the manner of arrest, though political and congressional remedies — including war‑powers resolutions — are actively being pursued ^{[11] [2] [6]}.

Conclusion

The legal record is sharply contested: the administration’s OLC memo asserts a domestic and international justification ^[1], but a wide range of independent legal experts, allied governments and U.N. officials conclude the use of force and capture of a sitting president on foreign territory likely violated international law and raised serious constitutional and war‑powers questions at home ^{[10] [3] [6]}. Given that the Justice Department itself declined to settle whether the operation violated international law in its internal review ^[2], the clearest answer available in public reporting is that the operation’s legality is deeply disputed — it is legally defensible by administration arguments, but on weight of international‑law norms and many expert views it is at substantial risk of being characterized as unlawful.