By Larry W. Zukerman and Adam M. Brown | Special to the CJN | January 29, 2026
In the field of U.S. foreign policy and international law, few recent events have stirred as much discussion as the military operation that led to the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. On Jan. 3, U.S. special forces, supported by airstrikes, conducted a raid in Caracas codenamed Operation Absolute Resolve. This action resulted in the apprehension of Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, who were then flown to the United States to face federal charges related to narcoterrorism and drug trafficking. President Donald Trump described the operation as a success and referenced the Monroe Doctrine – calling it the “Donroe Doctrine” – to explain America’s role in protecting its interests in the Western Hemisphere.
The Monroe Doctrine dates back to 1823, when President James Monroe declared that the Americas should be free from further European colonization or interference. Over time, the doctrine has been used to support various U.S. actions in Latin America, though it is not a formal treaty or part of binding international law. A notable historical example occurred in 1989, when the United States invoked the Monroe Doctrine, among other justifications, to support the military invasion of Panama and the subsequent capture and extradition of Gen. Manuel Noriega to face federal drug trafficking charges in the United States.
In this case, Trump invoked it to frame the capture as a defense of U.S. security, particularly against threats like drug trafficking and foreign influence in the region. Some experts point out that while the doctrine holds strong historical and symbolic meaning for American policy, it does not serve as a legal justification today. Modern rules of international conduct, mainly set out in the U.N. Charter, generally forbid the use of force against another country’s territory except in cases of self-defense or with approval from the U.N. Security Council.
The background to the operation involves years of tension. Venezuela has faced a major political crisis since the disputed 2024 presidential election, where Maduro claimed victory despite widespread claims of fraud. The United States and several other countries did not recognize the result. A 2020 U.S. indictment accused Maduro of leading a drug-trafficking network, and the recent operation brought those charges forward. The raid included strikes on military sites to clear the way for the capture team, leading to reported casualties on the Venezuelan side, including military personnel and others.
The U.S. government has presented the action as a law-enforcement effort backed by military support, relying on the president’s authority to address national security threats. Maduro and Flores pleaded not guilty in a New York federal court on Jan. 5, with Maduro describing himself as a “prisoner of war.” Internationally, the event has drawn sharp reactions: some nations condemned it as a violation of sovereignty, while others welcomed Maduro’s removal. The United Nations has discussed the matter, with concerns raised about respect for international norms.
This situation highlights how older foreign policy ideas can resurface in today’s world of global rules and treaties. The legal community, along with policymakers and scholars, continues to study the implications for issues like head-of-state immunity, the limits of unilateral actions and the balance between national security and international cooperation.
As developments unfold in Venezuela and Maduro’s legal proceedings continue, the episode encourages thoughtful examination of long-standing principles. In a time when international agreements aim to promote stability and mutual respect among nations, how effectively can historical policies like the Monroe Doctrine guide actions without challenging the established framework of global law?
For more information about Larry Zukerman, Adam Brown and the law firm of Zukerman, Lear, Murray & Brown, Co., LPA, visit zukerman-law.com.
