Might Does Not Make Right: A Historical and Political Examination of the Merits of the United States’ Deposition of Nicolas Maduro

By: Morgan Malone

  On January 3, 2026, U.S. President Trump authorized the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, at a fortified military fortress in Caracas. The mission was a part of “Operation Absolute Resolve,” a mission to apprehend and arrest Maduro for federal charges of drug trafficking and narcoterrorism. According to the U.S. Department of War, the U.S. will oversee Venezuela while helping the country “transition [in]to a legitimate replacement” for the deposed despot (U.S. Department of War). The news of Maduro’s removal from his office as President has been met with equal parts outcry and celebration.  

  To understand the complexity that lies beneath the surface of this situation, we must traverse back into Venezuela’s complicated, fraught political history. Venezuela was one of the first Latin American countries to declare independence from Spain in the early 1800s, but in the decades that followed, Venezuela unfortunately suffered from severe political instability at the hands of military dictators up until the mid-1950s, when a series of democratic elections took place. Relative stability lasted up until the 1990s; known as the “lost decade” in Venezuelan history. The country experienced an inflation level of 100%, severe shortages, significant poverty, and banking crises. Around this time, Maduro’s predecessor, Hugo Chávez, was rising in the ranks as a military officer and revolutionary who led in two military coups against incumbent president Carlos Andrés Pérez. Cháves was eventually elected president in 2002, and his administration came with much controversy and conflicting opinions. Leonardo Vivas of the Fair Observer writes, “On the one hand, he increased social programs for the poor and forged alliances with his neighbors. On the other hand, corruption, economic instability, and disillusionment marked his presidency, and continue to do so under his hand-picked successor.”  

  This shaky foundation is what Maduro inherited – and, arguably, contributed to – upon assuming the presidency in 2013, after first serving as Chávez’s Vice President. Since Maduro’s inauguration, Venezuela has experienced, among other things, an unprecedented financial crisis. Its gross domestic product shrank by 80% from the onset of Maduro’s presidency through late 2025, which led to staggering levels of unemployment and hunger (Jorge Valencia, NPR). Additionally, Maduro has been under fire for promoting narcoterrorism – both within Venezuela as well as the U.S. – with protection from Venezuelan military forces. Additionally, since Maduro’s re-election in 2024, there have been over 1800 arrests in the election’s immediate aftermath, as well as over 860 political prisoners held since early 2026 (Bloomberg News). As a result, almost 8 million Venezuelans have fled the country seeking both safety and economic opportunities (US for UNHCR).  

  On Monday, January 5, 2026, Maduro pled not guilty in a New York district court to charges of international narcotics and weapons-related charges, and protestors gathered outside in chilly temperatures to both celebrate and denounce Maduro’s imprisonment. The Guardian reported on the perspectives of several protestors. One protestor, Venezuela native Alejandro Flores, told the Guardian of his elation at Maduro’s imprisonment, “The fact that Maduro is in court means justice is being served…I want to see my country free.” Another protestor, activist Izzy McCabe, asserted that Venezuelans wish to retain their autonomy over their country and that the U.S. imposing itself into Venezuela’s affairs sets a dangerous precedent for the potential growth of U.S. imperialism. Another Venezuelan, Pedro Reyes, stated that while Maduro’s imprisonment was a “happy” occasion, the fight against him and the shadow he left behind continues: “There are people still associated with Maduro in Venezuela, and as long as they stay, the country will not be free” (Justo Robles, The Guardian).  

  Venezuela and the United States have been at odds for almost all of their history. Still, the relationship worsened exponentially upon Venezuela’s fraudulent re-election of Maduro in 2024 and the United States’ bombing of various alleged “drug boats” off the coast of neighboring country Colombia (Caitlyn Yilek, CBS News). Since September 2025, the United States military has carried out over three dozen bombings of fishing boats off the coast of Colombia and throughout various regions of the Pacific Ocean. While the U.S. Southern Command claimed that these bombings were carried out for the purpose of curbing narco-terrorism and international drug trafficking plots, many fishermen have been the targets of these attacks. As of now, the death toll from those operations is 126 people (John Otis, NPR News). Not only is there a significant death count of completely innocent individuals, but experts on international organized crime and relations between the U.S. and Latin American countries have reported that these attacks have done little to deter actual drug operations and instead have simply led to the rerouting of drugs to avoid American military strikes. Despite President Trump claiming that these attacks have stopped “97%” of all illegal drugs coming into the U.S. by boat, data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection reports a 34% increase in cocaine seizures from 2024, when these strikes were not occurring (NPR).  

  It begs the question: simply put, what is Trump’s end goal with these polices? And how does it connect to the extraction of Maduro? Much of the U.S.’s animosity arguably stems from the pervasive, ignorant attitudes about immigration that the Trump presidential administration, in particular, disseminates – as well as the increasingly violent and authoritarian policies to match. In an attempt to secure American borders from the violence of drug cartels and gangs, the Trump administration has unleashed a reign of terror on America in the form of unqualified, masked vigilantes patrolling the streets. In 2025 alone, 32 people died in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody, marking it the deadliest year in ICE’s history in two decades (Singh et al; The Guardian). Additionally, the senseless killings of American citizens Keith Porter, Renee Good, and Alex Pretti reflect a deeper, more sinister undercurrent of state-sanctioned oppressive violence.  

  On Tuesday, January 13, CSU Law Professors Kyle Shen and Milena Sterio hosted a discussion in the Moot Court room about Trump’s extraction of Maduro, asking the pivotal question, “Does might make right?” Our esteemed professors outlined the problematic nature of the U.S.’s approach in this matter, citing the lack of authority or jurisdiction of the U.S. to involve itself in foreign affairs under provisions of the U.N. Charter, the national security threat and subsequent vulnerability Venezuelans will face in the wake of this extraction, and the potential implications this incident could have for future controversies – most notably, U.S.’s potential annexation of Greenland. Such an invasion of a NATO-backed country would be – as Professor Sterio put it – “catastrophic” for our already frayed fabric of international relations.  

  In sum, not only does “kill and be killed” – or “conquer and be conquered” – seem to be the name of the game these days, but the United States of America continues to exert its power in a toxic, aggressive display of American nationalism. The extraction of Nicolás Maduro is no exception to this dangerous trend. Despite the very valid sentiments expressed among those who celebrate Maduro’s imprisonment due to the corruption he perpetuated during his presidency, the United States taking matters into its own hands to essentially discipline another country as an aggrieved parent would do to a child is not only a significant overstep in the realm of international law but serves as yet another notch in the belt of American imperialism.