Expert Rejects Trump's Rationale for Attack on Venezuela

Attack Amid International Accusations

The President of the United States, Donald Trump, and his allies have defended US attacks on Venezuela and the removal of President Nicolas Maduro from power, despite widespread condemnation asserting that these actions violate international law. Trump stated to reporters on Saturday that Maduro was "captured" following military attacks by the United States on the Venezuelan capital, Caracas, claiming he conducted a "deadly narco-terrorism campaign against the United States."

International law expert Claire Finkelstein from the University of Pennsylvania contradicted the Trump administration's arguments, stating that "there is no basis in international law for the actions taken by the US government." She labeled the attacks as an "illegal use of force and a violation of Venezuela's sovereignty," emphasizing that Maduro has personal international rights, thereby complicating the legality of the attack even further.

Political Reactions

This action was preceded by months of pressure on Maduro, whom the Trump administration has accused without evidence of ties to drug traffickers. Washington has launched deadly strikes against boats suspected of drug trafficking in the Caribbean and imposed sanctions against members of Maduro's family.

Democrats in the United States have demanded answers from the Trump administration, accusing it of seeking to carry out acts of war without Congressional authorization. In a statement, Gregory Meeks, leader of the Democrats on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, asserted that, despite the administration’s claims, "there was no imminent threat to the United States" from Venezuela.

Finkelstein stressed that these actions represent an act of war against Venezuela and that no self-defense justification exists to bypass Congress. "Even if you believe the US is in great danger from drug trafficking, there is no imminence that justifies unilateral action from the president," she concluded.