The Paradox of Presidential Power
Within a month, President Donald Trump has demonstrated two starkly contrasting approaches to Latin American leaders accused of identical crimes. In December 2025, he pardoned Juan Orlando Hernández, Honduras’s former president convicted of facilitating the import of 400 tons of cocaine into the United States. On January 3, 2026, he launched a military strike on Venezuela, captured President Nicolás Maduro on similar drug trafficking charges, and announced that the United States would “run” the country temporarily.
Both leaders stand accused of transforming their governments into criminal enterprises that flooded American streets with cocaine. Yet one walked free from a U.S. prison after serving just months of a 45-year sentence, while the other was seized from his presidential palace by Delta Force operators and flown to New York in handcuffs.
The contradiction raises fundamental questions about the rule of law, international order, and America’s credibility on the global stage.
The Hernández Pardon: Rewriting Justice
Juan Orlando Hernández was not a minor player in the drug trade. Federal prosecutors proved he had accepted millions in bribes from traffickers, including from Mexico’s Sinaloa Cartel, to protect cocaine shipments passing through Honduras en route to the United States. A Manhattan jury convicted him after a three-week trial in 2024, and he received a 45-year prison sentence.
The evidence was overwhelming. Prosecutors presented testimony from former cartel members, financial records, and intercepted communications showing Hernández had turned Honduras into a narco-state, using his position to enable the trafficking of more than 400 tons of cocaine valued at billions of dollars.
Yet Trump pardoned him on December 1, 2025, claiming without evidence that the prosecution was a politically motivated “setup” by the Biden administration. This claim rings hollow given that the indictment originated during Trump’s first term, and the trial followed standard judicial procedures with a jury conviction based on extensive evidence.
The pardon sent a clear message to would-be drug trafficking autocrats: cooperation with American interests might offer protection, regardless of crimes committed against the American people. Hernández had maintained close ties with the U.S. during his presidency, supporting American immigration policies and security initiatives.
The Maduro Capture: Uncharted Legal Waters
The operation against Venezuela represents something fundamentally different. In the pre-dawn hours of January 3, U.S. military aircraft struck targets in Caracas, including military installations and government buildings. According to Trump, American forces “turned off almost all of the lights” in the capital before Delta Force operators extracted Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, from the presidential palace.
The military action lasted less than 30 minutes but killed an undisclosed number of Venezuelan civilians and military personnel. Maduro now faces charges in New York including narco-terrorism conspiracy, cocaine importation conspiracy, and weapons offenses.
Trump justified the operation by citing drug trafficking, claiming Maduro ran “a vast drug-trafficking operation” and calling it “a campaign of deadly narco-terrorism against the United States.” He announced the U.S. would temporarily “run” Venezuela and exploit its oil reserves, with “very large United States oil companies” moving in to “fix the badly broken oil infrastructure.”
The operation marks the most significant American military intervention in Latin America since the 1989 invasion of Panama to capture Manuel Noriega, also on drug trafficking charges. But even Panama involved protecting American lives and strategic interests in the Panama Canal. Venezuela presents no comparable immediacy.
International Law: A System in Crisis
The Venezuelan operation has triggered near-universal condemnation from international law experts and multilateral institutions. The legal problems are manifold and severe.
Violation of the UN Charter
International law expert Michael Schmitt, a former Air Force lawyer and professor emeritus at the U.S. Naval War College, called the operation “a clear violation of international law.” The UN Charter prohibits the use of force except in cases of self-defense against an armed attack or with Security Council authorization. Neither condition applies here.
International law prohibits using force as national policy—short of UN authorization, force is only available responding to armed attack or possibly rescuing a population under imminent threat of extermination. None of these requirements were met.
Drug trafficking, however severe, does not constitute an “armed attack” under international law. The Trump administration’s designation of Venezuelan gangs as “foreign terrorist organizations” and claims of being in “armed conflict” with cartels represents an extraordinary and legally questionable expansion of presidential war powers.
Congressional Authority Ignored
Under the U.S. Constitution, Congress alone has the power to declare war. The administration informed the “Gang of Eight” congressional leaders only after operations began. Democratic lawmakers immediately challenged the legality of Trump’s actions.
Senator Tim Kaine stated categorically on NPR: “I think these strikes are clearly illegal. They have not been authorized by Congress. And the Constitution is clear that the U.S. doesn’t engage in military action or war without a vote of Congress except in cases of imminent self-defense.”
Representative Gregory Meeks noted there was “no imminent threat to the United States” from Venezuela, “certainly not one that justified military action without congressional authorization.”
Even some Republicans expressed unease. The operation raises the specter that any president could unilaterally launch wars based on loosely interpreted domestic priorities, circumventing the constitutional requirement for congressional authorization.
Head of State Immunity
As a sitting head of state, Maduro enjoys full personal immunity from prosecution in foreign domestic courts under customary international law. While many countries, including the United States, do not recognize Maduro’s legitimacy following Venezuela’s fraudulent 2024 election, legal experts note this immunity applies regardless of recognition status—precisely to prevent politically motivated arrests like this one.
The French Cour de Cassation has ruled that such immunity must apply even when states don’t recognize a leader’s legitimacy. Without this principle, any powerful state could simply declare a foreign leader illegitimate and seize them for trial.
Aggression as a Crime
The UN General Assembly’s 1974 Definition of Aggression explicitly includes such military operations as acts of aggression. UN experts stated the blockade and strikes on Venezuela “amount to violations of the right to life” and called for accountability, noting that “aggression is a crime attracting universal jurisdiction under international law.”
UN Secretary-General António Guterres expressed deep alarm, stating the developments “constitute a dangerous precedent” and that he was “deeply concerned that the rules of international law have not been respected.”
Global Reaction: A Divided World
The international response has been sharply divided, reflecting deeper geopolitical fault lines.
Latin America: Memories of Imperialism
Latin American nations were nearly unanimous in condemning the operation, seeing echoes of past U.S. interventions. Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva stated the capture crossed “an unacceptable line” and represented “a grave affront to Venezuela’s sovereignty and yet another extremely dangerous precedent for the entire international community.”
Colombia’s President Gustavo Petro deployed forces to the Venezuelan border to prepare for potential refugee flows and condemned “the aggression against the sovereignty of Venezuela and of Latin America.” Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum called it a “clear violation of Article 2 of the United Nations Charter.”
Even nations with no love for Maduro’s authoritarian regime expressed alarm. The Organization of American States has refused to recognize Maduro since 2019, yet the military operation united the region in condemnation of American unilateralism.
European Hesitation
European allies issued carefully calibrated responses acknowledging Maduro’s crimes while expressing concern about international law violations. EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas stated: “Under all circumstances, the principles of international law and the UN Charter must be respected. We call for restraint.”
France warned that “the military operation that led to the capture of Nicolas Maduro violates the principle of not resorting to force that underpins international law.” Spain, while not recognizing Maduro’s legitimacy, insisted that “neither will it recognize an intervention that violates international law and pushes the region toward a horizon of uncertainty and belligerence.”
Even Britain’s Prime Minister Keir Starmer, generally supportive of U.S. actions, emphasized: “I always say and believe we should uphold international law.”
Authoritarian Condemnation
Russia called the action “an act of armed aggression” and “an unacceptable assault” on Venezuelan sovereignty. China condemned what it called Washington’s “blatant use of force” against a sovereign state, stating it was “deeply shocked” by the operation.
Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei framed it as American imperialism: “When a person realizes the enemy is arrogantly trying to impose something on the country, on the officials, on the government, and on the nation, one must stand firmly against the enemy.”
Opposition Support
Venezuelan opposition figures celebrated Maduro’s removal. Within Venezuela and in exile communities worldwide, many people took to the streets in jubilation at the end of an authoritarian regime that has presided over economic collapse, widespread human rights abuses, and a refugee crisis that has displaced millions.
Right-wing governments in Argentina, Ecuador, and El Salvador offered support. Argentina’s President Javier Milei posted “FREEDOM MOVES FORWARD” and had previously described Maduro as a regional threat.
Israel and Ukraine also expressed support, with Ukraine noting it has not recognized Maduro’s legitimacy and that “the people of Venezuela must have a chance for a normal life, security, prosperity, and human dignity.”
Trump’s Image: Contradictions and Consequences
The Hernández pardon and Maduro capture create a profoundly contradictory picture of American justice and leadership.
Undermining Anti-Drug Credibility
How can the United States claim to be fighting drug trafficking when it pardons one convicted narco-president while militarily seizing another accused of identical crimes? The message appears to be that the “war on drugs” is selective, applied based on political considerations rather than consistent legal principles.
This undermines decades of American efforts to build international cooperation against drug trafficking. Why should other nations cooperate with DEA investigations or extradite traffickers if outcomes depend on political favoritism rather than evidence and law?
Eroding the Rules-Based Order
Trump campaigned against “forever wars” and “nation-building,” promising an “America First” approach. Yet he has now committed the United States to “run” Venezuela, potentially for years, in what could become exactly the kind of entanglement his supporters thought they were voting against.
Already, some MAGA supporters are expressing dismay. As analysts noted, “Boy were we wrong” was one departing MAGA representative’s response. Opinion polls show Americans oppose military action in Venezuela.
The operation also hands ammunition to America’s adversaries. When the U.S. criticizes Russia’s invasion of Ukraine or China’s territorial ambitions, those nations can now point to Venezuela as evidence of American hypocrisy. If the world’s most powerful nation ignores international law when convenient, why should weaker nations respect it?
Imperial Overreach
Trump’s announcement that the U.S. will “run” Venezuela and that “very large United States oil companies” will exploit its resources sounds like 19th-century imperialism. His statement that the U.S. will “start making money for the country” while American companies extract Venezuelan oil hardly disguises what critics call resource theft.
This revives painful memories throughout Latin America of gunboat diplomacy, banana republics, and CIA-backed coups. Even nations that oppose Maduro see the operation as setting a dangerous precedent that could be turned against them.
Implications for Singapore and ASEAN
For Singapore and ASEAN member states, the Venezuelan crisis carries significant implications that extend far beyond Latin America.
Rule of Law and Small State Security
Singapore has built its prosperity on international law and the principle that disputes should be resolved through multilateral institutions rather than unilateral force. As a small nation, Singapore depends on these rules to protect against larger powers acting on might-makes-right principles.
The Venezuelan operation directly threatens this system. If the United States can unilaterally attack a sovereign nation, seize its leader, and announce it will “run” the country based on domestic criminal charges, what prevents other powerful nations from doing the same?
China could claim drug trafficking or terrorism justifies actions against smaller neighbors. Russia could expand its rationale for intervention. The precedent is potentially catastrophic for small states.
ASEAN’s Delicate Balance
ASEAN members maintain careful balance between major powers, particularly the U.S. and China. The Venezuelan operation makes this balance harder to maintain. While ASEAN nations have not issued an official collective statement (which would be difficult given diverse views among members), individual responses will be scrutinized.
Indonesia’s foreign ministry emphasized “the importance of respecting international law and the principles of the UN Charter” while calling for de-escalation and dialogue. This represents a typical ASEAN approach—affirming principles without directly condemning the U.S.
But privately, Southeast Asian diplomats must worry. If international law can be disregarded so completely, the region’s careful diplomatic architecture becomes more fragile.
Economic Concerns
Singapore’s role as a global financial and trading hub depends on predictable international rules. The seizure of oil assets by U.S. companies in Venezuela, following a military operation, raises questions about property rights and sovereign immunity.
While Venezuelan state assets were already under U.S. sanctions, the military seizure and announced exploitation of resources goes further. This could create precedents affecting how international business operates and how sovereign assets are treated.
Strategic Uncertainty
The operation raises questions about U.S. reliability as a security partner. ASEAN nations work with the U.S. on various security issues, from counter-terrorism to maritime security. But if American actions can be so unilateral and disconnected from international law, is the U.S. a reliable partner for rules-based regional order?
Simultaneously, the operation demonstrates American military reach and willingness to act decisively—which could be reassuring or concerning depending on one’s perspective regarding U.S. power in the Indo-Pacific.
The Path Forward: Dangerous Precedents
The contrasting treatment of Hernández and Maduro reveals a transactional approach to justice divorced from consistent principles. One leader received mercy despite a jury conviction and overwhelming evidence; another was seized in a military operation despite the absence of imminent threat or legal authorization.
Short-Term Consequences
Venezuela faces chaos. With Maduro removed and the U.S. promising to “run” the country, the immediate questions are profound: Who actually governs? How long will U.S. occupation last? What happens to Venezuelan institutions, military forces, and civil society?
The longer the U.S. remains, the more it owns the consequences—economic hardship, political instability, violence. Trump’s promise to make Venezuela “rich, independent and safe” through oil exploitation and American management sounds like colonial rhetoric that will generate resistance.
Long-Term Systemic Damage
The real danger lies in systemic effects. International law depends on compliance by powerful states. When the United States, historically a champion of international order, openly violates core principles, it weakens the entire system.
Every dictator can now claim they’re fighting terrorism or drugs to justify intervention. Every powerful state can cite the Venezuelan precedent when violating smaller neighbors’ sovereignty. The United Nations Charter’s prohibition on the use of force becomes meaningless if the world’s strongest military power ignores it with impunity.
The Credibility Crisis
America’s selective application of justice—pardoning one narco-president while militarily seizing another—creates a credibility crisis that will take decades to repair. Allies question whether American commitments mean anything. Adversaries see confirmation that American power politics, not law or values, drives policy.
For Singapore and small states worldwide, the lesson is troubling: in a world where might matters more than law, size and power determine fate. This is precisely the world order the UN Charter was designed to prevent—a return to the law of the jungle where strong states prey on weak ones.
Conclusion: A Turning Point
The pardon of Hernández and the capture of Maduro represent more than contradictory decisions about two drug-trafficking leaders. They signal a fundamental shift in how America relates to international law and multilateral order.
Trump has demonstrated that domestic political considerations—whether rewarding allies or pursuing bold action—can override international law, constitutional processes, and consistent principles of justice. The message to the world is clear: power matters more than rules.
For Singapore and ASEAN, this demands careful navigation. The region cannot simply ignore violations of principles that protect small states. Yet directly confronting the United States risks damaging crucial relationships.
The Venezuelan crisis will test whether international institutions can respond effectively when a major power violates core principles. The UN Security Council meeting scheduled for January 6 will reveal whether other nations can or will hold the U.S. accountable, or whether international law has become merely advisory for the strong.
What is certain is that the rules-based international order, already strained by great power competition, has suffered another blow. In a world where the sheriff breaks the law, who protects the weak? The answer to that question will shape global politics for decades to come.
This analysis reflects the situation as of January 4, 2026. Developments continue to unfold rapidly in Venezuela and in international diplomatic responses.