When US special operations forces descended on Caracas in the dead of night and seized Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, the world crossed a line that had long existed more in principle than in practice. By attacking Venezuela, capturing its head of state, and openly declaring Washington’s intention to “run” the country indefinitely-without authorization from either Congress or the United Nations-President Donald Trump did more than launch a controversial foreign intervention. He may have shattered what remained of the fragile international norms governing the use of force, replacing them with a raw assertion of power that rivals such as China and Russia are almost certain to study, adapt, and exploit.

The operation was quickly framed by Trump as a triumph: “one of the most stunning, effective and powerful displays of American military might and competence in American history.” Yet beneath the bravado lies a far more consequential reality. The United States has now claimed, in practice if not formally in law, the right to invade another sovereign nation, arrest its leader on criminal charges issued by a domestic court, and occupy that country for an open-ended period. In doing so, Washington has set a precedent that undermines the very rules it has long insisted others must obey.

Trump has justified the intervention as part of what he calls the “Trump corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine, a sweeping reinterpretation of a 19th-century policy originally designed to keep European powers out of the Western Hemisphere. In his new National Security Strategy, the corollary aims “to restore American preeminence in the Western Hemisphere,” explicitly linking US military power to regime outcomes in Latin America.

The Monroe Doctrine was always controversial, often serving as cover for heavy-handed US interventions. But even at its most aggressive, it did not openly claim the right to kidnap foreign leaders and occupy their countries indefinitely. Trump’s version goes much further, asserting that Washington alone can decide which governments are legitimate and which are criminal enterprises deserving removal by force.

This approach carries enormous global implications. As Democratic Senator Mark Warner warned, if the United States asserts the right to use military force to capture foreign leaders accused of criminal conduct, what prevents China from claiming the same authority over Taiwan’s leadership? What stops Russia from justifying the abduction of Ukraine’s president under the banner of its own legal or security claims?

Once such a line is crossed, the restraints that limit global chaos weaken........

© Blitz