On Jan. 3, 2026, President Trump attacked Venezuela and kidnapped its president, Nicolas Maduro Moros, and first lady, Cilia Flores.
The operation has been characterized by critics as a kidnapping for ransom, with Venezuela’s natural resources—including oil, gold, and other minerals—serving as the implicit price for their release.
The Financial Beneficiaries of the US’s Attack on Venezuela
As the saying goes, “Those who profit have first and last names.”
According to Judd Legum’s reporting in Popular Information, billionaire investor Paul Singer stands to be among the biggest beneficiaries of this military action.
In 2024, Singer donated $5 million to Make America Great Again Inc. and approximately $39 million more to support Trump’s congressional allies. He is also a major pro-Israel donor.
In November 2025, Singer’s investment firm, Elliott Investment Management, purchased Citgo—the US-based subsidiary of Venezuela’s state-owned oil company—for $5.9 billion, roughly one-third of the Venezuelan government’s valuation. The sale was court-ordered by a Delaware judge following Venezuela’s default on bond payments.
The United States has never held legal ownership of Venezuela’s oil or territory. In 1976, Venezuelan President Carlos Andrés Pérez nationalized the country’s oil industry in what The New York Times described as a “peaceful and orderly” process, compensating US and European oil companies with approximately $1 billion.
The Legal Question: Was Removing Maduro Legal?
Legal scholar Marjorie Cohn says no. In an article for Consortium News, she wrote:
“After two world wars claimed more than 100 million lives, 50 countries came together and enacted the U.N. Charter to ‘save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind.’ The United States, one of the drafters of the Charter, is a party to that treaty.”
Article 2 (4) of the Charter declares, “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”
The only two exceptions are when a country acts in self-defense after an armed attack or when the U.N. Security Council approves the use of force.
The attack on Venezuela met neither criterion: it was not an act of self-defense, nor was it authorized by the Security Council.
Under this framework, the Jan. 3 military operation constitutes illegal aggression under international law.
In its 1946 judgment, the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg stated:
“To initiate a war of aggression … is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”
The US military attack violated Venezuela’s sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence, thereby constituting aggression under international law.
The Administration’s Justification: The “Narco-Terrorism” Narrative
The Trump administration justified the operation by alleging that Maduro operates as a drug kingpin who has sent drugs and “savage and murderous gangs, including the Tren de Aragua” to the United States.
However, an assessment by US intelligence agencies determined that Tren de Aragua operates independently of the Venezuelan government and is not committing crimes in the United States under government orders.
Seeking Justice: The Potential for an International War Crimes Tribunal
Secretary of State Marco Rubio characterized the action as “largely a law enforcement operation.”
However, under international law, a state has no enforcement jurisdiction in the territory of another state without that state’s consent.
Furthermore, customary international law grants Maduro “head of state immunity” from foreign enforcement jurisdiction.
For these reasons, President Trump and his associates may face potential war crime charges before an international tribunal.
Sources:
