As the USS Gerald R. Ford carrier strike group steams into the Caribbean and US forces intensify operations against alleged drug traffickers, the Trump administration appears to be signaling a more aggressive posture toward Venezuela. While the official justification centers on counter-narcotics enforcement, the scale and symbolism of deploying the world’s largest aircraft carrier suggest something more ominous: the potential for unilateral military action under a thin veil of legality.
This moment demands clarity, restraint, and above all, a recommitment to the rule of law.
The United States is a founding member of the United Nations and helped craft the very principles that now risk being undermined. Chief among these is the obligation to settle disputes peacefully. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, except in cases of self-defense or with explicit Security Council authorization. These are not optional guidelines—they are binding legal norms designed to prevent the very chaos and instability that unchecked power invites.
If the Trump administration were to launch an attack on Venezuela without meeting these legal thresholds, it would not only violate international law—it could constitute an act of aggression, a crime under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Such a move would place the United States in the same category as the Russian Federation, whose invasions of Ukraine in 2014 and 2022 were widely condemned as illegal acts of war.
The parallels are striking. In both cases, powerful nations seek to impose their will on weaker neighbors under dubious pretexts. In both, the rule of law is treated not as a guiding principle but as an impediment to executive ambition. And in both, the consequences are global: erosion of trust, destabilization of regions, and the weakening of institutions meant to safeguard peace.
It is deeply troubling that the United States—once the bedrock of international stability—is now viewed by many as an unpredictable destabilizer. The Trump administration’s disdain for multilateralism, its casual approach to legality, and its penchant for unilateral force have shaken allies and emboldened adversaries. When the world’s most powerful democracy begins to act outside the bounds of law, it sends a dangerous signal: that might makes right.
But it doesn’t. And it never should.
Peaceful resolution of disputes is not weakness—it is wisdom. It is the recognition that enduring solutions come not from bombs and blockades, but from dialogue, diplomacy, and respect for legal norms. The United States must not abandon the principles that have guided its leadership for decades. Instead, it must reaffirm them, especially in moments of crisis.
The deployment of military assets should be accompanied by transparency, legal justification, and congressional oversight. The American people—and the international community—deserve to know the true purpose of this mission. Is it about drugs, or is it about regime change? Is it lawful, or is it reckless?
History will judge the answers. But today, we must insist on the question: Will the United States choose law over force, peace over provocation?
The world looks on with great disdain.
David M. Crane is the Founding Chief Prosecutor for the UN Special Court for Sierra Leone. He is also the founder of the Global Accountability Network.
