Sat Jan 03 22:54:28 UTC 2026: Headline: Law Professor Condemns US Removal of Maduro as “Illegal Use of Force”
Washington D.C. – The Trump administration’s military actions against Venezuela and the removal of President Nicolas Maduro have sparked international controversy, with one legal expert branding the operation an “illegal use of force.”
President Trump announced on Saturday that Maduro had been “captured” following US military strikes in Caracas, alleging the former president was involved in “narco-terrorism.” Trump stated the US government would oversee a political transition in Venezuela, promising prosperity and security to the Venezuelan people.
However, Claire Finkelstein, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania, has strongly refuted the administration’s justification for the attacks. Speaking to Al Jazeera, Finkelstein described the actions as a “violation of Venezuelan sovereignty” and Maduro’s personal international rights.
“I don’t think there’s any basis under international law for the action that occurred overnight by the US government,” she stated.
Finkelstein pointed to numerous international laws, including the UN Charter, which prohibit the use of force against other nations without provocation. Democratic lawmakers have also voiced concerns, accusing Trump of overstepping his authority by initiating military action without congressional approval.
Congressman Gregory Meeks, a leading Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, argued that “there was no imminent threat to the United States” from Venezuela to justify such action. He emphasized the violation of both US and international law, stating, “This is not a limited operation.”
Finkelstein echoed this sentiment, asserting that the situation did not present the “immediate threat” necessary to bypass congressional authorization. She characterized the action as “an act of war against Venezuela,” emphasizing the lack of self-defense justification.
Furthermore, she condemned Trump’s plan for the US to “run” Venezuela as “incredibly illegal,” reiterating the principle of national sovereignty and the right of the Venezuelan people to choose their own leaders.
The situation in Venezuela remains tense, with widespread debate over the legality and justification of the US intervention.
First Piper 