Talking Feds: The Illegality of the Maduro Seizure Under Domestic and International Law

Host: Harry Litman
Guest: Steve Vladek (Agnes Williams Sesquicentennial Professor of Federal Courts, Georgetown University Law Center)
Date: January 6, 2026

Episode Overview

This urgent, post-seizure episode dives deep into the legal, moral, and geopolitical ramifications of the U.S. operation that forcibly captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. With Steve Vladek’s incisive legal perspective, the show probes the uncharted and controversial ground this action threads under both international and U.S. law. The discussion weighs the justifications presented, picks apart comparisons to past U.S. interventions, and explores the far-reaching consequences for U.S. credibility and the international order.

Key Topics & Insights

The Precedent and Moral Atmosphere (02:15–05:47)

• West Wing "League of Ordinary Nations" Analogy:
  • Vladek opens with a reference to The West Wing, expressing that the U.S. action reeks of "thuggishness" and makes America appear as a "big country doing to a little country something that it can only do because it's a big country."

    • “It just, you know, I was reminded of that scene…Bartlett is worried...not only do we become part of the League of Ordinary Nations, but also…what kind of precedent does this set? What kind of retribution are we inviting?” (Vladek, 02:42)

• Moral and Policy Backdrop:
  • Litman frames it starkly: “An ordinary here then means not burdened by things like broader moral interests, our role in the world, et cetera, even. Even by the law.” (03:58)

International Law—A Clear Violation? (05:47–09:10)

• UN Charter as Binding U.S. Law:
  • The UN Charter, as a ratified treaty, is part of U.S. "supreme law" under Article 6 (Supremacy Clause).

    • “The international law we’re talking about here is the UN Charter…It is a treaty…the supreme law of the United States.” (Vladek, 05:47)

• Article 2(4):
  • Prohibits use of force against territorial integrity or political independence of any state, with only a narrow exception for self-defense (Article 51).
  • Vladek notes: "there’s no self defense here…Self defense has never been part of it at all." (06:25)
• Barr Memo and its Flaws:
  • The operation’s legal justification traces to a 1989 Bill Barr OLC memo, which claims the President can ignore the Charter.

    • “The Barr memo...doesn’t even try to argue that these kinds of extraterritorial arrests are consistent with the UN Charter. It says the President has the authority to ignore the Charter…” (Vladek, 07:22)

• Critique:
  • Vladek stresses this offers no real legal cover and is a “whitewash” of law.

The "Bootstrapped on Stilts" Theory and Its Danger (09:10–10:43)

• Pretextual Use of Law Enforcement:
  • The operation’s rationale: FBI agents enter Venezuela to arrest Maduro; massive military force is to protect them. Vladek skewers this logic:

    • “…by that logic the U.S.…can invade any country at any time so long as there's at least one person in that country against whom there is a pending indictment...” (Vladek, 09:43)

• Retroactive Rationalization:
  • The rationale appears chosen after the fact, to justify a policy decision rather than an act of law.

Exploring International Law Defenses and Consent (11:53–14:06)

• Venezuelan Consent Argument:
  • Could Venezuela’s “legitimate” government consent? Vladek says no—no evidence of any government actor giving prior consent.

    • “No one who is claiming any authority in the Venezuelan government has said anything about consenting to this operation.” (13:01)

• Practical Obstacles:
  • Even if U.S. recognizes someone else as Venezuela’s leader, Venezuela is an operational state with a UN representative; so consent is not plausible.

Domestic Law, Precedent, and Political Fallout (15:50–18:55)

• Boat Strikes v. Seizure:
  • Boat strikes previously discussed infringed less, as they were not direct violations of territorial sovereignty. This represents major “escalation.”

    • “…there's this creeping escalation of how much power the Trump administration is claiming under the auspieces of Article 2…” (Vladek, 16:14)

• Congressional Inaction and Expansion of Executive Power:
  • Vladek laments the lack of Congressional pushback:

    • “At some point, you know, there has to…I mean, I think we're long past what the founders would have ever thought Article 2 allows the President to do.” (Vladek, 16:41)

The Manuel Noriega Comparison (17:06–20:52)

• Operation Just Cause (Panama 1989):
  • Noted as the closest parallel but with key differences:
    • Panama declared war vs. U.S., and U.S. forces were attacked.
    • Even then, the operation’s legality was hotly contested.

    • “The best example they've got is an example where… the country had declared war against us and… it had already killed US service members before we invaded. That is not this case.” (Vladek, 20:04)

• Extradition as a Real Legal Process:
  • The U.S. often uses legal extradition collaborations, as with Honduras’ ex-president (who was, ironically, later pardoned by Trump for a similar offense).

Head of State Immunity and Complications for Prosecution (21:00–24:48)

• Head of State Immunity:
  • Traditionally (though not codified in U.S. law), recognized heads of state are immune from prosecution for official acts.
  • Maduro’s unique situation:
    • Recognized by the U.S. government 2013–2019.
    • Elected under Venezuelan law, if not universally acknowledged as legitimate.

    • “One, that we did recognize him for six years and at least some of the charges are related to stuff he did during the period where we recognized him as the head of state. And two… he was still serving, consistent with the Venezuelan constitution, as the head of state…” (Vladek, 24:30)

  • Noriega, by contrast, was never recognized as the head of state post-coup.

Will There Be Legal or Political Consequences? (26:50–28:31)

• Legal Remedies Likely Unavailable:
  • U.S. courts rarely review how defendants are “brought” to the U.S. (Kerr-Frisbie doctrine).
  • International courts (e.g. ICJ) will be slow, and lack enforcement power.

  • “I’m not optimistic that the law is going to provide any kind of remedy here…” (Vladek, 27:15)

• Political Fallout More Likely:
  • Potential for Congressional hearings or electoral backlash, especially if Congress changes hands and if this is not an isolated event.

The Larger Consequences for the U.S. and World Order (28:31–31:42)

• Soft Power and Credibility Damaged:
  • The action undermines the U.S. claim to a rules-based order—weakening the ability to criticize other violations (e.g. Russia/Ukraine):

    • “…when you lose that moral high ground, it’s more than just…a debating flaw…You are losing the ability to build consensus with our partners when rogue actors, when other countries do the exact same thing we’re doing and say, to quote, you did it too.” (Vladek, 30:46)

• Minimal Tangible Benefit, High Cost:
  • Vladek calls the operation “petty compared to the costs”—with only weak gains for real U.S. interests.

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• "Thuggish...big country doing to a little country something that it can only do because it's a big country." (Steve Vladek, 02:42)
• "The international law we're talking about here is the UN Charter...a treaty...part of the supreme law of the United States." (Steve Vladek, 05:47)
• "This whole thing just smacks of...trying to retroactively provide a rationalization for something the administration just decided it wanted to do." (Steve Vladek, 10:00)
• "You can invade any country at any time so long as there's at least one person in that country against whom there is a pending indictment…That's just insane." (Steve Vladek, 09:43)
• “There's this creeping escalation of how much power the Trump administration is claiming...I don't know what the legal limiting principle is anymore.” (Steve Vladek, 16:14)
• "You are losing the ability to build consensus with our partners when rogue actors, when other countries do the exact same thing we are doing and say...you did it too." (Steve Vladek, 30:46)

Timestamps for Key Segments

• Intro & Episode Context: 00:36–02:13
• Setting Moral/Policy Backdrop (West Wing reference): 02:13–03:58
• UN Charter & Binding Law: 05:47–06:25
• Article 2(4) and Self Defense: 06:25–07:22
• Barr Memo Flaws: 07:22–09:10
• Pretext of Law Enforcement as Military Justification: 09:10–10:43
• International Law & Venezuelan Consent: 11:53–14:06
• Escalation Compared to Boat Strikes: 15:50–16:14
• Noriega Precedent Analysis: 17:06–20:52
• Head of State Immunity: 21:00–24:48
• Practical Consequences for Law & Politics: 26:50–28:31
• Broader U.S. Soft Power Issues: 28:31–31:42

Closing Thought

In one of the episode’s most resonant lines, Steve Vladek critiques the Maduro operation as a stark betrayal of not just legal but also strategic and moral U.S. interests:

"It is basically trading away what is left of our credibility and our moral authority on the world stage for what really doesn't strike me as a huge short term or long term payout. And that's what I don't get about this whole operation. It seems petty compared to the costs..." (Vladek, 31:20)

This episode offers a bracing, clear-eyed breakdown of the legal and global stakes for U.S. actions—and a caution about the cost of abandoning longstanding rules.