Venezuela / U.S.A

The United States has imposed wide-ranging economic sanctions on Venezuela, presented as responses to alleged violations of human rights, democratic standards, and involvement in transnational narcotics activity. The WED observes these developments with concern, noting that the scale of U.S. military activity in the Southern Caribbean heightens the risk of regional destabilisation. Such deployments, formally justified as counter-narcotics operations, contribute to the development of State practice in ways that reach beyond the immediate dispute and affect the normative and institutional security framework of the Americas.

Several States in the Americas have taken positions on the deployment. Colombia called for urgent regional consultations and warned of a threat of aggression. Mexico rejected any possibility of U.S. military action on its territory as a violation of sovereignty. The WED monitors the situation in view of the risk of spillover affecting regional stability.

September 2025, Prospects of U.S. Ground Deployment

In September 2025, President Trump stated that operations against drug cartels could be extended to Venezuelan territory, suggesting that the naval presence in the Caribbean might be supplemented by action on land. This declaration, coming in the wake of the extensive U.S. naval buildup, introduced the prospect of military activity on Venezuelan soil. While senior officials later minimised the likelihood of a ground invasion, the statement itself heightened regional concern. By linking cartel activity to national security threats and designating such groups as terrorist organisations, Washington sought to ground its position in domestic legal authority. When transposed to foreign territory, however, that rationale comes into direct tension with international law, particularly the prohibition on the use of force and the principle of State sovereignty.

Caracas interpreted the President’s remarks as evidence of a broader interventionist agenda and formally rejected the possibility of foreign troops entering its territory. Venezuelan officials conveyed their concerns to the Secretary-General and the Security Council, insisting that any deployment of U.S. personnel on Venezuelan soil would amount to an armed attack in violation of Article 2(4) of the Charter of the United Nations. Domestically, the statements were used to rally nationalist sentiment: President Maduro vowed that “no empire will touch the sacred soil of Venezuela,” while senior military figures pledged to resist any intrusion by foreign forces.

The WED notes with particular concern that such rhetoric, even absent operational follow-through, erodes the boundary between counter-narcotics operations and coercive military measures. When the prospect of deploying troops on Venezuelan soil is invoked by a permanent member of the Security Council, it risks legitimising unilateral recourse to force outside the Charter framework and destabilising the regional security order in the Americas.

August 2025, U.S. Military Deployment Near Venezuela

In August 2025, the United States undertook a large-scale naval deployment in the Southern Caribbean, off the coast of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. While officially described as a counter-narcotics operation, the buildup followed a presidential directive authorising the use of military force against foreign drug cartels designated by Washington as terrorist organisations. The force included an Amphibious Ready Group centred on the USS Iwo Jima, supported by dock landing ships, guided-missile destroyers, a Ticonderoga-class cruiser, and the Los Angeles-class submarine USS Newport News, with surveillance provided by P-8A patrol aircraft. The deployment, involving an estimated 8,500 personnel, far exceeded the scale of routine patrols in the Caribbean and constituted one of the most substantial U.S. maritime concentrations near Venezuela in recent decades.

The United States has sought to justify the use of force against non-State actors abroad under the rubric of counter-terrorism, extending this rationale to cartels it unilaterally designates as terrorist organisations. United States officials stated that the deployment aimed to disrupt narcotics trafficking and enhance interdiction capacity. President Trump declared that all instruments of American power would be employed against cartels linked to the fentanyl and cocaine crises, while naval commanders described the operation as part of wider missions against transnational criminal organisations. Independent assessments, however, largely viewed the buildup as a form of coercive pressure on the Venezuelan government rather than preparation for open hostilities. Analysts observed that the projection of force appeared calculated to unsettle Caracas, encourage military defections, and bolster opposition morale, even as U.S. officials dismissed the possibility of a full-scale invasion.

Venezuela rejected the United States’ justification, contesting it as incompatible with the prohibition on the threat or use of force under Article 2(4) of the Charter of the United Nations and describing the deployment as a pretext for intervention under the guise of counter-narcotics operations. In letters addressed to the Secretary-General and the Security Council, it asserted that the buildup violated the Charter of the United Nations and requested international attention to prevent the use of force against its territory. The Government announced the mobilisation of naval and air assets, the reinforcement of coastal and border defences, and the activation of the Bolivarian Popular Militia. Senior military officers publicly affirmed loyalty, and recruitment campaigns were initiated to expand militia participation.

The WED observes that the scale of the United States deployment, undertaken unilaterally and in close proximity to Venezuelan territory, amounts to a display of force that carries destabilising effects for the wider region. By invoking counter-narcotics and counter-terrorism rationales to justify military activity abroad, Washington advances an interpretation of law that stretches the limits of the Charter of the United Nations and risks eroding the prohibition on the threat or use of force. Such actions reinforce perceptions of coercion by a major power against a neighbouring State in a markedly asymmetrical relationship.

Seizure of Venezuela’s Presidential Plane

On 6 February 2025, authorities of the Dominican Republic, acting at the request of the United States, seized a Dassault Falcon 2000EX associated with Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. According to the United States Department of Justice, the action rested on alleged violations of United States export control and sanctions law. United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement indicated operational support. The Government of Venezuela rejected the seizure as unlawful.

On 18 March 2025, the United States filed a civil forfeiture complaint in the Southern District of Florida concerning a separate Dassault Falcon 900EX bearing tail number T7-ESPRT. United States authorities allege that the aircraft was smuggled and operated for the benefit of President Nicolás Maduro in contravention of sanctions. These steps are presented by the United States as enforcement of domestic law with extraterritorial effect. Venezuela characterizes them as a breach of sovereignty and an extension of coercive measures.

These measures exemplify the contested practice of applying domestic sanctions law with extraterritorial reach. In asserting jurisdiction over Venezuelan-linked assets abroad, the United States advances a unilateral enforcement model that Venezuela regards as irreconcilable with the principles of sovereign equality and non-intervention. The measures apply United States domestic sanctions law to property located in third States and stand in conflict with the principle of sovereign equality and the collective framework of the Charter of the United Nations.