‘My morals, my law’: Trump’s doctrine in the Wild West

KARACHI:

“I don’t need international law. My own morality. My own mind. That’s the only thing that can stop me,” US President Donald Trump declared in an interview with the New York Times on Friday. The remarks came in the wake of a daring US special forces operation that abducted Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and raised alarm bells among international law experts, political commentators and foreign policy analysts worldwide.

Trump’s sharp assertion underscores a broader pattern of unilateralism in American foreign policy, a pattern that challenges not only constitutional and legal norms but also the entire post-World War II international system.

According to Trump, the operation in Venezuela was intended to allow the United States to “use oil and… take oil,” with the proceeds from it under his direct control. Such statements, reminiscent of colonialist ambitions, signal a profound departure from standard diplomatic practice and raise concerns about the erosion of the international legal order.

Stephen Collinson, writing for CNN, described the abduction as a brazen violation of Venezuelan sovereignty and international law. “The operation probably went beyond a president’s constitutional authority in the use of military force. But the president’s morals were not troubled, so he went ahead,” Collinson noted.

Michelle Langrand, of Geneva Solutions, called the operation “the latest blow to international law” and warned that a system already weakened by selective enforcement is struggling to respond effectively.

Legal scholars have been unequivocal in their condemnation. Vincent Chetail, a professor of international law at the Graduate Institute, described the raid as a clear violation of international law and the prohibition on the use of force.

Kate Vigneswaran, director of the International Commission of Jurists’ Global Accountability Initiative, called the operation an “act of aggression” and underlined the dangerous precedent it sets for other states.

The consequences extend far beyond Venezuela. Europe, historically America’s partner in upholding multilateral norms, has been left frozen in response, baffled by Washington’s aggressive unilateralism. As Tim Ross writes for Politico, the EU’s response to Trump’s Venezuela move was like “an icy blast of arctic air,” reflecting a growing disillusionment with US leadership.

Trump’s subsequent threats to NATO, Cuba and Iran, as well as his interest in Greenland, signal a pattern in which American foreign policy increasingly prioritizes executive discretion over alliances and shared global norms.

Experts warn that the rejection of international law can have disastrous consequences. International law – codified through UN conventions, treaties and multilateral agreements – has historically provided the framework for preventing unilateral aggression and ensuring global stability.

Margaret Satterthwaite, the UN’s special rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, told Al Jazeera that US rhetoric is “extremely dangerous”, warning that it could herald a return to an era of imperialism. By undermining international legal norms, Washington risks encouraging other states to pursue aggressive policies under the guise of national interests.

Yusra Suedi, assistant professor of international law at the University of Manchester, echoed these concerns. “It signals something very dangerous in that it gives permission to other states to follow suit – states like China that look at Taiwan or Russia regarding Ukraine,” she said.

Ian Hurd, a professor of political science at Northwestern University, placed Trump’s actions in historical context, noting that US interventions in Latin America over the past century – including coups and invasions in Panama, Haiti, Nicaragua and Chile – have repeatedly produced instability, repression and human rights abuses.

“Trump’s Venezuela policy is in line with the historical pattern of US attempts to determine governance in the Americas. In each case, Washington eventually came to regret its intervention,” Hurd said.

Jiang Feng, a researcher at Shanghai International Studies University, explained that Trump’s approach reveals a long-standing American tradition of self-centered supremacy in global affairs. The current administration’s blatant rejection of international norms is not an anomaly, but a continuation of a pattern in which international law is invoked selectively—when it serves American interests—and discarded when it is inconvenient. The result is a destabilization of the liberal international order, once anchored in Western-led institutions and norms.

Analysts say the wider implications are dire. Tim Ross notes that Trump’s policies threaten not only specific agreements such as the Paris climate accord, but the broader architecture of the EU, which has historically been a major producer of international law.

By privileging unilateral decision-making over multilateral consultation, the United States risks undermining decades of collective efforts to establish rules that prevent war, protect human rights, and promote sustainable development.

The Trump administration’s actions exemplify a dangerous revival of power politics: “might makes right.” Legal and political experts warn that if major powers flout international law, it risks triggering a global chain reaction. Other states may feel justified in pursuing aggressive or expansionist policies that erode decades of progress in conflict prevention and multilateral cooperation.

The Venezuela operation also highlights the domestic dimension of Trump’s foreign policy. By portraying himself as the sole arbiter of morality and law, Trump centralizes decision-making in the executive branch, setting aside constitutional constraints and institutional oversight. This concentration of power, combined with disregard for international norms, creates systemic risks, both at home and abroad.

In short, the US abduction of Nicolas Maduro and the president’s subsequent rejection of international law is more than a geopolitical maneuver – it is a symbolic and practical attack on the international order.