Key Takeaways
The core question
In early January, the United States (North America) faced a sharp public question: how can any U.S. leader say the United States will “run” Venezuela (South America), even for a short time, and is that allowed. [1]
Two rulebooks at once
One debate is about U.S. law inside the United States (North America). Another is about international law between countries. They do not answer the same way. [4][6]
Words matter
Saying “we will run the country” is not the same as showing a clear legal plan, a time limit, or a chain of authority. That gap is where many disputes begin. [1][3]
Story & Details
What was said, and why it landed so hard
On January 3, U.S. President Donald Trump said U.S. forces captured Venezuela’s (South America) President Nicolas Maduro and that the United States (North America) would “run” Venezuela (South America) until a “safe” transition. Major news outlets described the claim as open-ended and light on details about who would govern, for how long, and under what rules. [1][3]
For many listeners, the shock was not only the capture claim. It was the governing claim. “Running” another country sounds like more than a military mission. It sounds like control over daily state life: ministries, police, borders, budgets, and oil policy. That is why the phrase triggered constitutional and legal questions at once. [1][3]
The U.S. Constitution question: who decides on war and force
Inside the United States (North America), the U.S. Constitution splits war-related power. Congress holds the power to declare war, while the President is Commander in Chief of the armed forces. That split creates long arguments about what a President can do quickly and what needs Congress. [5]
Alongside the Constitution, the War Powers Resolution is a key U.S. law about hostilities. It sets expectations for consultation and reporting to Congress, including a short window for reporting after troops are introduced into hostilities or likely hostilities. It also sets a clock for continued involvement without specific congressional authorization. [4]
That is why “unconstitutional” is often not a simple yes-or-no in public debate. The law has text, but real life brings hard edge cases. If troops are used, Congress can respond through funding, authorizations, oversight, and political pressure. Courts often avoid deciding the heart of war-powers fights, which leaves many disputes to politics rather than judges. [4][5]
The international law question: force, self-defense, and the idea of occupation
International law starts from a basic rule in the United Nations system: countries must not use force against the territorial integrity or political independence of another country. That rule is widely linked to Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter. [6]
There is a major exception often argued: self-defense, linked to Article 51, which speaks about an inherent right of self-defense if an armed attack occurs. In the same news cycle, reporting described U.S. officials pointing to Article 51 language as part of their justification. [2][7]
But even when self-defense is claimed, the idea of “running” another country points toward a different legal concept: occupation. Under international humanitarian law, occupation is tied to effective control over territory without consent. The International Committee of the Red Cross explains occupation in these terms and connects it to the long-standing Hague Regulations approach. [8]
That matters because occupation, if it exists, is not a blank check. It carries duties and limits. It also raises urgent questions about legitimacy, civilian life, and the risks of long control without local consent. [8]
A brief Dutch mini-lesson for reading fast-moving news
A small phrase for confusion
A short Dutch phrase that fits moments like this is: “Wat gebeurt er?”
It is used when something surprising happens and someone wants clarity.
In simple English, it is: “What is happening?”
Word-by-word: wat = what; gebeurt = happens; er = there. The tone is neutral and common.
A close, natural variant is: “Wat is er gebeurd?”
Word-by-word: wat = what; is = is; er = there; gebeurd = happened. This one points more to what already happened, not what is happening right now.
Conclusions
Not just a slogan, but a legal test
On January 4, the claim that the United States (North America) will “run” Venezuela (South America) sat at the center of two storms: U.S. constitutional war powers at home, and the United Nations force rules abroad. [1][4][6]
Why the “unconstitutional” label spreads fast
People reach for the word “unconstitutional” because the idea sounds bigger than a limited strike: it sounds like governance. In U.S. terms, that usually means Congress, laws, money, and accountability. In international terms, it raises the hardest questions of sovereignty and control. [4][6][8]
The clearest practical takeaway
If “running” a country is more than a phrase, the next facts that matter most are simple: who governs, under what written authority, for how long, and with what limits. Those details decide whether the claim is merely rhetoric—or the start of a deeper legal and political break. [1][3]
Selected References
[1] Reuters — “Trump says U.S. will run Venezuela after U.S. captures Maduro”
https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/loud-noises-heard-venezuela-capital-southern-area-without-electricity-2026-01-03/
[2] Reuters — “UN Security Council to meet Monday over US action in Venezuela”
https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/un-chief-venezuela-us-action-sets-dangerous-precedent-2026-01-03/
[3] AP News — “Maduro arrives in US after stunning capture”
https://apnews.com/article/85041a1ec03bafe839b785a95169d694
[4] Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School — “50 U.S. Code Chapter 33: War Powers Resolution”
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/chapter-33
[5] National Archives — “The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription”
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript
[6] United Nations, Codification Division — “Article 2(1)–(5) (includes Article 2(4))”
https://legal.un.org/repertory/art2.shtml
[7] United Nations, Codification Division — “Article 51”
https://legal.un.org/repertory/art51.shtml
[8] International Committee of the Red Cross — “Occupation”
https://www.icrc.org/en/law-and-policy/occupation
[9] YouTube — “What Was the War Powers Resolution of 1973?”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=barQHoh3krc
Appendix
Article 2(4): A widely cited rule in the United Nations system that says countries should not threaten or use force against another country’s territory or political independence. [6]
Article 51: A United Nations Charter provision often linked to self-defense, describing an inherent right of self-defense if an armed attack occurs, alongside duties tied to Security Council awareness. [7]
Commander in Chief: A constitutional role in the United States (North America) that places the President at the top of the armed forces chain of command, especially for directing military operations. [5]
Declare War Clause: A constitutional power given to Congress in the United States (North America) that is central to debates about when large-scale military action needs explicit legislative approval. [5]
International Humanitarian Law: A body of law focused on limits in armed conflict, including rules for protecting civilians and setting duties for armed forces in certain situations. [8]
Occupation: A situation in which a foreign power exercises effective control over territory without consent; it can trigger legal duties toward the population and limits on what the controlling power may do. [8]
Security Council: A United Nations body that can address threats to peace and security; it is central in debates about the lawful use of force between countries. [2][6]
War Powers Resolution: A U.S. law that sets expectations for consultation, reporting, and time limits around the use of U.S. armed forces in hostilities without specific congressional authorization. [4]
My Diary - Leonardo Cardillo 