Maduro, the 'Donroe' Doctrine, and the Implications for the Rule-Based Order

A Midnight Operation: The Fall of Maduro

At 1:01 a.m. Eastern Standard Time in Caracas, an event unfolded that has already reshaped the international political landscape. Reports began circulating that United States special operations forces had entered the presidential compound of Nicolás Maduro. Within minutes, social media channels and global news outlets filled with claims that the Venezuelan president and his wife, Cilia Flores, had been captured and removed from the country.

At 2:00 a.m. Eastern Time, President Trump confirmed the operation himself. On his social media platform, Truth Social, he posted a statement reading: “The United States of America has successfully carried out a large scale strike against Venezuela and its leader, President Nicolas Maduro, who has been, along with his wife, captured and flown out of the Country.”A later post included an image appearing to show the Venezuelan leader handcuffed aboard the USS Iwo Jima, a Wasp-class amphibious assault ship positioned off the Venezuelan coast.

The Donroe Doctrine: America Reasserts Hemispheric Dominance

Later that day, at 5:30 p.m. Central European Time, President Trump addressed the press from his Mar-a-Lago estate. He confirmed his Truth Social statement, declaring: “America will never allow foreign powers to rob our people or drive us out of our own hemisphere.” He praised what he called the strongest and most fearsome military in the world and announced the birth of what he termed the “Donroe Doctrine.” The phrase, merging his name with the Monroe Doctrine of 1823, symbolised the revival of an assertive hemispheric policy. “Under the new National Security Strategy,” he said, “American dominance in the Western Hemisphere will never be questioned again.”

By the morning of 4 January, the United States Department of Justice announced that both Maduro and Flores were being held in federal custody in New York. The pair had been indicted on charges of ‘narco-terrorism’ and conspiracy to traffic narcotics into the United States. For Washington, it was a dramatic vindication of years of accusations that the Venezuelan regime had transformed itself into a criminal cartel. For the rest of the world, it was a moment of disbelief. The United States had unilaterally and extrajudicially kidnaped the sitting head of a foreign sovereign state and transported him to American soil for prosecution.

Left to right: CIA Director John Ratcliffe, President Donald J. Trump, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio

The National Security Strategy, published in December 2025, had already been interpreted by analysts as a radical reorientation of American foreign policy. In its own words, it called for a “rebalancing of commitments” and a renewed focus on hemispheric control. It identified China, Russia, and Iran as direct threats to American influence in the Western Hemisphere, framing competition over resources and access as matters of national survival. Where previous strategies had emphasized partnership and multilateralism, this one prioritized deterrence, coercive leverage, and economic control. It was, in essence, the formal codification of a doctrine that fused economic nationalism with military pre-eminence.

Trump’s press conference left no doubt that this strategy was now active policy. When questioned by reporters about the duration of the occupation and the scale of the military commitment, he declined to specify any timeframe. He described the situation in Venezuela as “complex” and said the United States would remain “until such time that we can do a safe, proper, and judicious transition.” Pressed further on whether U.S. troops would be stationed on Venezuelan soil, he replied, “we're not afraid of boots on the ground if we have to”. The statement marked a definitive break from the language of limited intervention and confirmed that the United States now viewed the governance of Venezuela as a matter of strategic administration. He emphasised that American firms would play a leading role in restoring Venezuela’s “broken oil infrastructure” and managing production from the world’s largest proven reserves. No details were provided on how Venezuelan institutions would be included in the interim governance structure.

The implications of this declaration are immense. For the first time in the modern era, the United States has assumed control over a foreign sovereign country without the consent of its government or the authorization of the United Nations Security Council. The act represents a fundamental rupture with the rule-based international order established after 1945. It recalls nineteenth-century imperial doctrines where power justified possession and sovereignty was conditional on compliance.

There is little doubt that Nicolás Maduro’s rule was ruinous for Venezuela. His government oversaw the collapse of what was once Latin America’s wealthiest economy. Hyperinflation obliterated savings, public services disintegrated, and millions of citizens were driven into exile. Reports of repression, censorship, and widespread corruption were well-documented. Senior figures in his administration were accused of using the state’s oil revenues to fund drug trafficking networks. In this respect, his removal was seen by many Venezuelans as overdue justice.

A Legal and Moral Precedent: Eroding the Rule-Based Order

Yet the manner of his removal, and the establishment of de facto American control, has raised questions far beyond Venezuela. By forcibly abducting a foreign head of state and declaring an open-ended occupation, the United States has crossed a threshold that the international legal system was designed to prevent. The Charter of the United Nations forbids the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, except in cases of self-defence or collective enforcement authorised by the Security Council. Neither condition applies here. The Venezuelan operation, therefore, stands outside the boundaries of international legality.

The moral and political paradox is acute. Maduro’s fall may free Venezuelans from tyranny, but it also normalizes the idea that a powerful state may unilaterally determine the fate of weaker ones. If Washington can remove a foreign leader under the pretext of criminal prosecution, other powers will feel entitled to act in similar fashion. China could claim the right to arrest “separatists” abroad. Russia could justify interventions in neighboring states it deems unstable. The precedent erodes the fundamental equality of states upon which the post-war order rests.

The 'Donroe' Doctrine is, in practice, both a revival of old American assertiveness and a declaration of a new imperial posture. It transforms the Western Hemisphere into a security zone managed according to U.S. interests. With Trump openly threatening other ‘rivals’ in the americas, by for example telling the press, that Columbian president Gustavo Petro has to “watch his ass".

Global Repercussions: Europe, China, and the Future of Sovereignty

Reactions from the international community have been immediate. China, heavily invested in Venezuela’s oil and infrastructure, denounced the operation as a gross violation of sovereignty. Russia called for an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council, and it condemned the U.S. action as “an act of armed aggression against Venezuela.” Iran condemned it as “a gross violation of a countrys' national sovereighnity.”

In Europe, the response has been divided. The European Union expressed “deep concern” about the legality of the intervention while acknowledging the humanitarian relief that might follow Maduro’s removal. Several European governments privately admitted that the end of his regime could stabilise energy markets, but few were willing to endorse the precedent. For Europe, which defines itself through the defence of international law, this presents a profound dilemma. How can European leaders continue to advocate for a rules-based order when its principal architect now disregards those rules?

The historical context deepens the contradiction. In 1976, Venezuela nationalised its oil industry, creating the state-owned company PDVSA and asserting control over its resources. Under Hugo Chávez, that process expanded in 2007, culminating in the state takeover of the Orinoco Belt. Although international arbitration eventually required Venezuela to compensate foreign companies, the claim that it “stole” American oil has no legal basis. The 'Donroe' Doctrine reframes this economic history as a justification for occupation, transforming a dispute over nationalization into an argument for reasserting ownership through force.

For international law, the implications are catastrophic. The prohibition on the use of force is the cornerstone of the global legal system. It limits the ability of powerful states to impose their will through military means. Once that principle is breached by one of the system’s principal guardians, its universal authority begins to collapse.

Europe now faces an urgent choice. It can either reassert its commitment to legality by demanding transparency, oversight, and accountability for the Venezuelan operation, or it can remain silent and accept that international law has been finaly replaced by spheres of influence. European governments should call for an emergency session of the United Nations General Assembly to reaffirm the principle of sovereignty and demand a clear timetable for the restoration of Venezuelan self-government.

The rule-based order, painstakingly built over eight decades, relies on the restraint of the powerful. The fall of Nicolás Maduro, while ending one of Latin America’s most destructive regimes, has simultaneously exposed how fragile that order has become. The image of Maduro in handcuffs may symbolize the demise of dictatorship, but it also illustrates the peril that arises when power ceases to recognize international law.

Two centuries after President Monroe sought to protect the Americas from European empires, his modern successor has used his name to justify a new form of imperial management. The 'Donroe' Doctrine proclaims freedom yet enforces obedience. It speaks the language of justice while practising domination.

Maduro’s downfall may bring temporary relief to Venezuela, but the precedent it sets could erode the very principles that have restrained global conflict since 1945. When the most powerful nation claims the right to govern another, the rule-based order ceases to be universal and becomes merely an instrument of convenience. If that transformation continues unchecked, future generations may remember not only the end of a dictatorship but also the quiet unravelling of international law itself.