“My Morality, My Law”: Trump’s Wild West Doctrine

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 said in an interview with the New York Times on Friday. The remarks follow a daring operation by U.S. special forces that kidnapped Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, raising alarm among international law experts, political commentators and foreign policy analysts around the world.

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

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

Stephen Collinson, writing for CNN, described the kidnapping as a blatant violation of Venezuelan sovereignty and international law. “The operation probably went beyond the president’s constitutional prerogative to use military force. But the president’s morals were not disturbed, so he continued,” Collinson observed.

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

The jurists were unequivocal in their condemnation. Vincent Chetail, professor of international law at the Graduate Institute, called the raid a flagrant violation of international law and the prohibition on the use of force.

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

The ramifications extend far beyond Venezuela. Europe, a historic partner of the United States in respecting multilateral norms, remained frozen in its response, perplexed by Washington’s aggressive unilateralism. As Tim Ross writes for Politico, the EU’s reaction to Trump’s Venezuela move was like “a freezing slap of Arctic air,” reflecting growing disillusionment with American leadership.

Trump’s subsequent threats against NATO, Cuba, and Iran, as well as his interest in Greenland, demonstrate a trend in which U.S. foreign policy increasingly prioritizes executive discretion over alliances and shared global norms.

Experts warn that ignoring international law could have catastrophic consequences. International law – codified by United Nations conventions, treaties and multilateral agreements – has always provided the framework for preventing unilateral aggression and ensuring global stability.

Margaret Satterthwaite, UN 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 the era of imperialism. By undermining international legal norms, Washington risks encouraging other states to pursue aggressive policies under the guise of national interest.

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

Ian Hurd, a political science professor at Northwestern University, placed Trump’s actions in historical context, pointing out that U.S. 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 consistent with the historical pattern of the United States trying to decide governance in the Americas. Either way, Washington came to regret its intervention,” Hurd said.

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

Analysts say the broader consequences are serious. Tim Ross observes that Trump’s policies threaten not only specific agreements like the Paris climate accord, but also the broader architecture of the European Union, historically a major producer of international legislation.

By prioritizing 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 actions of the Trump administration illustrate a dangerous renaissance of “might makes right” power politics. Legal and political experts warn that if major powers fail to respect international law, it risks setting off a global chain reaction. Other states may feel justified in pursuing aggressive or expansionist policies, thereby eroding decades of progress in conflict prevention and multilateral cooperation.

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

In short, the US kidnapping 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.