• The US captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro during a military operation criticized for potential legal violations.
• The operation, dubbed “Operation Absolute Resolve,” reportedly resulted in civilian casualties and was called a "crime of aggression" by international law experts.
• Critics argue that the legality of the US action may breach both domestic and international law.

The US captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro early Saturday morning, following a military operation that critics claim potentially violated international law. Trump’s administration has faced widespread condemnation for this action, which some international leaders view as an unlawful aggression against a sovereign nation. Reports specify that at least 40 individuals, including civilians, were killed during the operation, leading to fears of a massive refugee crisis in the region in response to US military actions, according to Channel News Asia, South China Morning Post, and India Times.

The operation, codenamed “Operation Absolute Resolve,” commenced with a coordinated military strike involving more than 150 aircraft. The US claims the action was necessary due to Maduro's alleged ties to drug trafficking and terrorism, framed as a law enforcement measure by officials. However, critics, including legal experts, argue that the military action constitutes an unlawful incursion into Venezuelan sovereignty, violating Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which prohibits member nations from using force against another state, as reported by Anadolu Agency and India Times.

Trump's administration has indicated that it intends to hold Maduro accountable for crimes tied to narcotics trafficking, stating, "they will soon face the full wrath of American justice on American soil in American courts," according to Attorney General Pam Bondi. Despite the claim of targeting drug crimes, experts contend that a criminal indictment does not justify the use of military force against a foreign government, suggesting the action lacks a clear mandate under both US and international law, according to Channel News Asia and South China Morning Post.

The US administration's claim that it acted for self-defense has also been challenged. Critics argue that the absence of an immediate threat to the US from Venezuela undermines this justification, leading to a consensus among international law experts that the operation represented a “crime of aggression.” Geoffrey Robertson KC described the raid as “contrary to Article 2(4)” of the UN Charter, highlighting the severe legal implications for the US, as reported by India Times and Anadolu Agency.

The operation has drawn varied reactions internationally, with several nations, including Mexico and Cuba, condemning the US actions as violations of sovereignty and international law. Meanwhile, supporters of the operation from a few Latin American nations praised it as a step toward restoring democracy in Venezuela. This juxtaposition reflects the polarized perspectives on US foreign policy and military intervention in Latin America, according to South China Morning Post and Anadolu Agency.