The precedent of arresting a president
What does Nicolás Maduro's capture mean for the future?
Design by Ridhi Boggavarapu
Ridhi Boggavarapu, News and Copy Editor
Approximately 7.5 million to 10.5 million arrests occur annually in the United States. People commit crimes, people are arrested. It's how the justice system functions, how it's been functioning for centuries. But arresting a head of state, that's another matter altogether. It's not something that happens often, especially by a democratic country. So when the U.S., a democratic country and a major world power, captures and arrests a leader of another sovereign nation, it begs the question: Why?
On Jan. 3, 2026, the U.S. government, under the instruction of the Trump administration, seized Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, in a military operation called "Operation (Absolute) Resolve". The U.S. government stated that the operation's purpose was to enact justice on Maduro due to his alleged role in illicit drug smuggling into the U.S. In the capital city, Caracas, Venezuelans witnessed air strikes set the night ablaze with clouds of smoke erupting over the capital. Reports state that around 40 people died during this operation.
Currently, President Trump has stated "[The US is] going to run [Venezuela], until we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition [of power]". United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio has further elaborated, stating that the US will be enforcing Venezuela's oil quarantine, which will block oil exports from Venezuela, as an indirect way to influence Venezuelan policy, and keep US adversaries from accessing the oil.
Around the world, both common people and country leaders had a variety of reactions. In Venezuela, many people are rejoicing. This is largely due to Maduro's past oppression of those who oppose him, glaring human rights violations, and his role in the creation of one of the world's largest economic collapses, which has left Venezuelans unable to afford basic necessities. However, many Venezuelans remain wary of this military operation as they are unsure if and when substantial strides toward progress will occur. As of now, the regime Maduro led still remains, even if he is gone. Prices are still sky-high. The military's pervasive presence still lingers. People are still afraid to speak their mind. According to a poll from 2018 by Datanálisis, a major polling company in Venezuela, when asked whether they would support “a foreign military intervention to remove President Maduro from his position", only 35 percent of Venezuelans said yes, with 54 percent against such action. This was quite unexpected given the majority of Venezuelan's sour feelings toward Maduro. However, it seems that many Venezuelans worry that foreign influence would complicate matters and may not truly help the country.
Outside of Venezuela, neighbouring Latin American countries condemned the actions, as did Venezuela's long-term allies, Russia and China. China said it was "deeply shocked and strongly condemns" the use of force against a sovereign country and its president. Countries in Europe had a more ambivalent, tactful response. The European Union's top diplomat, Kaja Kallas, did acknowledge Europe's belief that Maduro's rule "lacked legitimacy" but also stated that "the principles of international law must be respected." Even with concerns over international law being expressed globally, the U.S. is not expected to face significant repercussions from the United Nations or specific countries. This may be due to the U.S. being a major military and economic superpower, which likely gives the U.S. leverage when performing military actions.
Although the U.S.'s goal with this operation was to shut down drug trafficking in Venezuela, this may not be as straightforward as arresting the president. The drug trafficking system is uncentralized and has multiple actors involved. To truly stop drug trafficking, the overall system must be dissolved.
To some, this may seem like an unprecedented action. However, the U.S. has done this before. During the Bush administration, the U.S. captured Panama's dictator, Manuel Noriega on the basis of drug trafficking charges. In 1989, the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel's William Barr wrote a memo that stated a president had "inherent constitutional authority" to use the FBI to arrest people in foreign countries, even if it may violate international law. Additionally, the federal court has upheld that the way in which a defendant is brought to a US court(lawfully or unlawfully) does not nullify prosecution for the criminal charges. This is what the U.S. government's legal team will point to for this case. However, following this precedent has it's consequences. What does this allow future presidents to get away with? What might this signal to other countries?
It is hard to determine what Venezuela's future will look like, but given what has currently occurred, change is not going to occur immediately. Yet, the actions of the U.S. have left ripple effects that will follow us for a very long term.
