Opinion: Maduro’s capture tests international law and U.S. power

There are legitimate reasons why many Venezuelans — and many beyond Venezuela — have long argued that Nicolás Maduro should be brought to justice. His government has been credibly linked to large-scale corruption, authoritarian repression and longstanding ties to illicit drug trafficking networks that have destabilized the region. Compounding this record is the widely held view that Maduro no longer held a legitimate mandate after Venezuela’s 2024 presidential election, which he lost but refused to recognize. For millions of Venezuelans forced into exile, accountability has felt not only overdue, but essential.

These realities explain why reports of Maduro’s recent capture by U.S. forces were met in some quarters with relief. Yet even when the objective appears morally compelling, the means by which it is pursued still matter. They matter especially when those means risk upending international norms and reshaping the balance of power in the Western Hemisphere.

President Donald Trump’s subsequent declaration that the U.S. would “run the country” until a proper transition could be arranged transformed a question of accountability into one of governance and geopolitics. At that point, the issue ceased to be solely about Maduro and became about precedent. A unilateral seizure of a sitting head of state — absent explicit international authorization under the U.N. Charter — tests those principles, regardless of the individual involved.

This collision between power and law comes at a moment when global rules are already under strain. The U.S. has rightly emphasized respect for sovereignty in condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and in signaling deterrence around Taiwan. When Washington appears to set aside those same norms in Latin America, it risks weakening the very framework it invokes elsewhere. Selective adherence to international law invites selective obedience by others.

Into this vacuum steps China. Beijing’s newly published policy paper on Latin America and the Caribbean with its call for a “zone of peace in the region,”  is not a neutral document. It is a strategic response to what China portrays as an expanding U.S. military footprint in the Caribbean and the broader region. By emphasizing non-intervention and economic partnership — while downplaying governance and human rights — China positions itself as a calmer, development-focused alternative to Washington’s security-first posture. Whether or not that portrayal is accurate, it resonates in a region weary of external military interventions.

The contrast is sharpened by President Trump’s own National Security Strategy. This strategy underscores U.S. security interests in the Western Hemisphere — counter-narcotics, migration control and strategic competition with China — but it gives comparatively little attention to the region’s most urgent structural challenge: economic development and inclusive growth. Security cannot be sustained where opportunity is absent. Migration pressures from Venezuela, Central America and parts of the Caribbean are not simply law-enforcement problems; they are symptoms of economic failure and institutional decay.

If the United States wishes to be a respected neighbor rather than a feared enforcer, it must grapple with this reality. Running Venezuela — even temporarily — would entail massive economic responsibilities: stabilizing currency, restoring energy infrastructure, rebuilding public services and creating conditions for private investment. Absent a credible development strategy, military control risks becoming an expensive holding pattern rather than a bridge to recovery.

For San Diego and our military community, these questions matter. Any sustained U.S. role in Venezuela would likely require boots on the ground to provide security and manage instability.  If local service members are asked to deploy, they deserve clarity about mission, legality and end state — not strategic ambiguity after the fact.

None of this diminishes the possibility that Maduro’s removal could open a narrow window of hope. If the regime’s coercive structures were truly dismantled, Venezuela’s diaspora could play a transformative role in rebuilding their country. But capturing one man does not automatically dismantle an entrenched system. The risk is that the U.S. now owns both the moral burden and the practical consequences of what follows.

Maduro’s record may justify accountability. It does not automatically justify methods that scramble international law, cede narrative ground to China and substitute military action for economic strategy. If the United States seeks lasting stability in the Western Hemisphere, it must pair justice with legality, security with development and power with restraint. Anything less risks winning the moment while losing the region.

Kiy is president and CEO of the Institute of the Americas and lives in Escondido.