Trump administration's seizure of Venezuelan President Maduro draws condemnation from home and abroad

(ECNS) - The U.S. military operation that seized Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro has drawn sharp criticism at home and abroad, fueling debate over its legality, compliance with international norms, and the future of the Venezuelan people.

Critics, including U.S. lawmakers, legal experts, and foreign leaders, warned that the action may violate U.S. and international law and set a dangerous precedent for regional stability.

Within the U.S., the raid prompted accusations that the administration misled the public and acted illegally. Senator Jeanne Shaheen, top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in a statement on Saturday: "Because the President and his Cabinet repeatedly denied any intention of conducting regime change in Venezuela when briefing Congress, we are left with no understanding of how the Administration is preparing to mitigate risks to the U.S. and we have no information regarding a long-term strategy following today's extraordinary escalation."

Representative Seth Moulton told CNN: "When we had briefings on Venezuela, we asked, 'Are you going to invade the country?' We were told no. 'Do you plan to put troops on the ground?' We were told no. 'Do you intend regime change in Venezuela?' We were told no. So in a sense, we have been briefed, we've just been completely lied to."

Senator Tim Kaine issued pointed criticism in a public statement: "President Trump's unauthorized military attack on Venezuela to arrest Maduro — however terrible he is — is a sickening return to a day when the United States asserted the right to dominate the internal political affairs of all nations in the Western Hemisphere. Where will this go next? Will the President deploy our troops to protect Iranian protesters? To enforce the fragile ceasefire in Gaza? To battle terrorists in Nigeria? To seize Greenland or the Panama Canal? To suppress Americans peacefully assembling to protest his policies?"

"Trump has threatened to do all this and more and sees no need to seek legal authorization from people's elected legislature before putting servicemembers at risk."

Jeremy Paul, a professor of constitutional law at Northeastern University, told Reuters: "You cannot say this was a law enforcement operation and then turn around and say now we need to run the country. It just doesn't make any sense."

U.S. news outlets also criticized the move. An editorial by the New York Times called the seizure of Maduro "illegal and unwise", warning it risked pushing the U.S. "toward an international crisis without valid reasons" and represents "latter-day imperialism" with a "dangerous and illegal approach to America's place in the world," noting that Venezuela has become the first victim. The editorial also cautioned that the action "threatens to replicate the American hubris that led to the invasion of Iraq in 2003."

In a separate column for the newspaper, Thomas Friedman wrote that Trump's focus on oil and regime control signals a return to resource-driven foreign policy, echoing past interventions like Iraq, while ignoring the risks of prolonged occupation.

U.S. lawmakers invoked historical lessons in criticizing the move.

Representative Hakeem Jeffries said, "The promotion of security and stability in a region requires more than just military force as we painfully discovered in Iraq and Afghanistan." Senator Chuck Schumer added that "The idea that Trump plans to now run Venezuela should strike fear in the hearts of all Americans. The American people have seen this before and paid the devastating price."

Internationally, Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva described the operation as crossing "an unacceptable line" and a violation of Venezuelan sovereignty. Colombian President Gustavo Petro said he "rejects the aggression against the sovereignty of Venezuela and of Latin America." Chilean President Gabriel Boric and Mexico expressed concern over regional stability. Russia condemned the strike as "an act of armed aggression," while Cuba denounced it as "state terrorism."