In the early hours of Jan. 3, the world watched history unfold: Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, were captured by U.S. military forces during a dramatic raid and transported to U.S. soil to face criminal charges. President Donald Trump publicly announced the operation and declared that the United States would assume control of Venezuela until a transition is achieved.
For those who have long criticized Maduro’s authoritarian rule, economic mismanagement, and alleged involvement in illicit trafficking, news of his removal may seem like a triumph. But the manner in which it occurred — a unilateral military action without express congressional authorization — raises profound questions about democratic norms at home and abroad.
The United States is founded on principles of legality, the consent of the governed, and separation of powers. By bypassing Congress through a direct assault and the removal of a foreign head of state, the executive branch has set a precedent that critics argue could be exploited by other leaders. If such actions can be justified without legislative oversight on the grounds of alleged criminality or geopolitical strategy, what prevents another power from employing the same logic tomorrow?
Consider Russia: could the Kremlin now point to this operation to claim a moral justification for unilaterally removing Ukraine’s elected president Volodymyr Zelenskyy, or for intervening in other sovereign states under similar pretexts? And might other regions, from Africa to the Middle East, watch nervously as external powers take military action in neighboring countries without broad international authorization?
Also, consider Iran: Trump has warned that the U.S. is “locked and loaded” if Iran kills peaceful protesters.
Some will argue that Maduro’s removal was long overdue. But exporting democracy by force — particularly without broad domestic or international consent — undermines the very rule of law the U.S. claims to uphold.
This moment demands not just celebration or condemnation, but sober reflection on the consequences of setting such a powerful and dangerous precedent.