A U.S. Air Force F-35A Lightning II taxis on a runway in Ceiba, Puerto Rico following military actions in Venezuela in support of Operation Absolute Resolve on Jan. 3, 2026. (Katelynn Jackson/U.S. Air Force)
The United States’ decision to label the military extraction of Nicolás Maduro from Venezuela last weekend as a “law-enforcement” operation has sparked a legal debate that the designation could put service members operating across the globe at risk of not being treated as prisoners of war if captured by an adversary.
All of the nearly 200 special operations troops and 150 aircraft that participated in the Jan. 3 raid to capture the dictator returned to U.S. soil, prompting Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to praise the operators for their flawless execution.
The debate comes from the language used to describe the 2½-hour operation that sent American troops into a military complex in Caracas with support from the CIA.
“This past weekend, colleagues, the United States successfully carried out a surgical law-enforcement operation facilitated by the U.S. military against two indicted fugitives of American justice, narco-terrorist Nicolás Maduro and Cilia Flores,” U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz said before an emergency meeting of the U.N. Security Council on Monday.
In using this language and clearly avoiding characterizing the operation as an armed conflict, there could be consequences down the road for any countries that look to the United States’ example as an excuse to avoid extending prisoner of war status to captives, said Geoffrey Corn, a retired Army attorney and professor at Texas Tech University School of Law.
“We can agree that the end that was achieved is something that is not a bad thing,” he said. “But the manner by which it was achieved creates second- and third-order consequences that don’t appear to be sufficiently contemplated.”
The decision to mark this as a law-enforcement operation is not only “perplexing, it is fundamentally inconsistent with the entire rationale of the 1949 Geneva Conventions,” Corn said.
When drafting the definitions, armed conflict was adopted in a deliberate effort to prevent states from bending the application of its humanitarian laws by misidentifying what is obviously war, he said.
When two countries engage in armed conflict, members of their armed forces who are captured are entitled to a prisoner-of-war status and international law would grant them combatant immunity among many other benefits. Otherwise, they would be held to the laws of that country and charged with crimes.
If the U.S. begins to manipulate that entitlement, it could lead its adversaries to do the same, Corn said.
Had any U.S. service members been captured during the Maduro raid, “the U.S. would almost certainly be insisting that they are entitled to prisoner-of-war status, that the Red Cross is entitled to access to them, and that they need to be immediately repatriated as soon as the hostilities are over,” he said.
Rich Whitaker, a retired Army attorney with experience in special operations units, interpreted statements by Waltz and others from U.S. officials to be describing a mission of self-defense, an action codified in the U.N.’s charter. He cited public information about Maduro’s actions toward the U.S., as justifying self-defense. A federal court indictment stated Maduro and his co-conspirators have distributed “tons of cocaine” in the U.S. for decades and have operated as narco-terrorists relying on corruption and violence.
“I believe the administration intended to execute a military operation, justified by the doctrine of self-defense,” Whitaker said. “I believe they also intended to achieve a law-enforcement outcome, but given the facts, and the words chosen by Ambassador Waltz, it is clear to me they relied upon a self-defense legal justification for the use of military force.”
In his experience counseling troops as part of his military career, he found soldiers do take an interest in these laws before their missions and truly want to understand the laws of war, Whitaker said.
“They saw themselves as playing by the rules and in order to play by the rules, you have to understand those rules,” he said. “Not just for what would happen to them — does this make them more vulnerable? — but really for a higher reason than that. They see themselves as doing right and America doing right.”
Whitaker said he imagines that similar conversations occurred in the planning for the mission.
“Despite all the worldwide noise, at the foundation, I think soldiers can rest easy knowing that this mission was properly authorized and was conducted in accordance with the law and policy of the United States and widely accepted international law,” he said.
Part of the reason the language of law enforcement might have been used by the White House could be to skirt around the need to seek Congressional approval for the operations. On Thursday, the Senate took action to reinforce its role.
Senators advanced a resolution to require congressional authorization for additional military force against Venezuela, asserting the chamber’s constitutional authority to declare war. The Senate will now debate the resolution and then vote on its final passage. It is unclear if the House would approve the measure, and Trump would be able to veto it if landed on his desk.
