It is widely viewed by legal experts as not legal under international law for the United States to unilaterally capture Nicolás Maduro inside Venezuela with military force, and the legality is also highly doubtful under U.S. domestic law.

What actually happened

  • U.S. forces carried out a military operation in early January 2026 in Venezuelan territory and seized Nicolás Maduro, transferring him to face narcoterrorism and related charges in New York.
  • The operation followed months of U.S. strikes on vessels allegedly linked to Venezuelan drug trafficking networks in nearby waters, which already raised legal red flags.

International law issues

  • Article 2(4) of the U.N. Charter prohibits the use of force on another state’s territory except in self‑defence or with U.N. Security Council authorization, neither of which clearly applies here.
  • Multiple international law scholars have said the operation is a “clear” or “flagrant” violation of international law and an illegal breach of Venezuelan sovereignty, even if Maduro is widely criticized or considered illegitimate.

Domestic U.S. law concerns

  • Experts in U.S. constitutional and national security law note that a criminal indictment does not itself authorize the president to use military force abroad to depose or seize a foreign head of state.
  • Commentators also highlight that Trump’s broader move to have the U.S. “run” or “manage” Venezuela looks like an “illegal occupation” without clear authorization from Congress or any specific statute granting such open‑ended power.

How experts are framing it

  • A former assistant U.S. attorney and law professor called the capture “a blatant, illegal and criminal act,” underscoring that legality concerns are not just academic but framed as potential criminal conduct under international law.
  • Other scholars compare this to the 1989 Noriega case in Panama, but stress that even that controversial precedent does not clearly justify invading another country now to seize a sitting leader without consent or international mandate.

Forum and public debate flavor

  • Online forums and political discussion boards are treating the question “is it legal for the US to capture Maduro” as part of a broader debate about U.S. regime‑change tactics, with many users bluntly labeling the action a crime or illegal intervention, regardless of whether there will ever be consequences.
  • Across commentary, the dominant view is that whatever one thinks of Maduro politically, normalizing unilateral armed abductions of foreign leaders erodes core principles of sovereignty and could set a dangerous precedent other powers may try to copy.

Information gathered from public forums or data available on the internet and portrayed here.