Trump’s Reckless Assault on International Law: Venezuela, Iran and the Collapse of the UN Charter

By Frank Ofili

In a dramatic and dangerous departure from established norms of global governance, U.S. President Donald Trump has overseen two of the most controversial uses of force in recent history — actions that have effectively removed foreign heads of state and ignored the core principles of the United Nations Charter. These events are not only geopolitical flashpoints; they raise urgent questions about the future of international law, the legitimacy of the United Nations, and the constitutional boundaries of U.S. foreign policy.

Come with me, let us recap.

On January 3, 2026, U.S. forces launched a military operation in Venezuela targeting state infrastructure and key leadership, resulting in the capture and extraction of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife from Venezuelan territory. Trump publicly announced the operation, framing it as a major victory in the fight against corruption and narcotics trafficking.

But the legal and moral foundations of that operation are deeply questionable:

International law forbids the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state unless in self-defense or authorized by the UN Security Council.

The United States conducted the operation unilaterally — without UN authorization or any credible demonstration of an imminent threat to U.S. security.

Legal experts, UN rapporteurs, and international bodies have called the action a severe breach of foundational international law and the UN Charter.

The UN Secretary-General has described the operation as setting a dangerous precedent, undermining confidence in the international rule of law.

South Africa’s government condemned the capture as a “flagrant violation” of the UN Charter, stating that the UN prohibits the use of force in matters that fall within the domestic jurisdiction of sovereign nations.

In essence, the United States executed what amounts to regime change via force — an act long associated with imperial powers of the past, not a modern, law-abiding member of the international community.

Shortly after the Venezuela operation, the Trump administration, in coordination with Israeli forces, carried out massive military strikes on Iran aimed at degrading Tehran’s nuclear infrastructure. These strikes killed hundreds and included the confirmed death of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s Supreme Leader. Before this latest attack, the U.S. and Israel had, in June 2025, struck Iran’s buried nuclear facilities which Trump claimed had been “obliterated”.

These attacks have triggered international alarm.

The European Union and numerous world leaders have explicitly called for “maximum restraint” and respect for international law, highlighting the primacy of the UN Charter’s prohibition on the use of force absent a clear legal basis.

While the events in Iran differ in context from Venezuela, the underlying theme is similar – the use of force without UN security council authorization or a clear, defensible claim of imminent threat, leaving the actions at best legally dubious under international law.

The Trump administration’s actions also raise serious constitutional concerns at home. The U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war. By ordering sweeping military action in Venezuela — and engaging in major strikes in Iran — without explicit congressional authorization, the administration has arguably exceeded the president’s authority.

Some critics have argued that labeling a sitting foreign head of state as a criminal suspect does not grant legal jurisdiction for a cross-border military operation. Maduro’s indictment in U.S. courts cannot override Venezuelan sovereignty or global norms.

The lack of congressional oversight on such significant decisions magnifies the danger of executive overreach and risks establishing dangerous precedents for future U.S. leaders.

Ditto this latest attack on Iran which Trump claims was carried out to “eliminate the threat posed to the U.S. by Iran”. One may ask, what threat does Iran pose to the U.S.? Truth is, Trump acted at the behest of Israel. It is instructive that this latest attack on Iran was carried out even as negotiations between both countries, brokered by Oman, was still on-going.

It is on the strength of this that the U.S. Democratic lawmakers and some Republicans, are pushing for a War Powers Resolution that would limit Trump’s ability to continue or expand military action without congressional approval. This is separate from a formal declaration of war but would legally constrain further U.S. involvement unless Congress authorizes it.

President Trumps actions also  have prompted widespread global unease and condemnation.

Major regional actors — from Latin American governments to global powers like China and Russia — denounced the Venezuelan operation as unilateral aggression that undermines sovereignty. Within the United Nations, numerous member states and legal experts question whether the most basic provisions of the Charter — the prohibition on force without Security Council approval — still hold meaningful weight.

If the international legal order is treated as optional whenever a powerful state deems its interests threatened, the consequences will be profound: credibility of the UN will weaken, smaller nations will fear powerful neighbours, and rules designed to prevent war may fall into irrelevance.

In conclusion, Trump’s deployment of military force to remove foreign leaders and bomb sovereign states — without clear legal or multilateral backing — marks a turning point for international law. His actions undermine core principles of the UN Charter, particularly state sovereignty and collective decision-making. His actions also challenge the constitutional balance between U.S. executive and legislative powers.

Finally, his actions set a dangerous precedent that power, not law, dictates global politics. The world must confront this reality frankly: if the UN Charter and international law can be cast aside in the name of unilateral expediency, the rules that have kept relative stability for decades may no longer function as intended. The danger is not only to Venezuela or Iran — it is to the very notion of a rules-based international order.