MAGA (Make America Great Again): Venezuela as a Spearhead Against the Petrodollar

The Neo-Monroe Doctrine under Trump: MAGA and the Reassertion of Hemispheric Hegemony

Portuguese version

Edmundo Lellis Filho is an attorney licensed to practice in Brazil and the European Union. He is a member of the International Bar Association (IBA) and the International Law Association (ILA – London). He is currently a Master of Laws (LL.M.) candidate in International Justice at the University of London. A retired judge of the São Paulo State Court of Justice (TJSP), he served on the bench from 1991 to 2022.

Key Findings

• International Legal Framework: The arrest of Maduro is analyzed through the lens of international law, raising critical questions regarding the legitimacy of unilateral actions taken by the United States.

• Recognition of Sovereignty: Despite the allegations against Maduro, the United Nations continues to recognize his legitimacy as the President of Venezuela, a factor that complicates the legal basis for foreign military intervention.

• Extraterritoriality and National Law: The United States prioritizes the application of domestic statutes over international legal norms, as exemplified by “Operation Absolute Solution.”

• Geopolitical and Economic Objectives: Beyond the apprehension of Maduro, military engagement in Venezuela serves to safeguard the hegemony of the U.S. dollar and secure strategic petroleum interests.

• The MAGA Doctrine and Currency Monopoly: Maintaining the status quo of the dollar’s monopoly as the global reserve currency is identified as a vital pillar of the MAGA (Make America Great Again) platform.

• Shift in Global Monetary Dynamics: The intensifying competition between the U.S. dollar and emerging alternatives, such as the petroyuan, signifies a potential paradigm shift in global political and monetary relations.

“The American empire emerged from the rubble of a famished post-WWII Europe (1939–1945) via the Marshall Plan. Unlike the Romans, its dominance was not imposed solely through military might, but through the consistent trust (fiducia) inherent in printing slips of green paper that the entire world accepted as gold, pursuant to the Bretton Woods Agreement of July 22, 1944. Deviating from the pattern of domestic military coups, Nixon executed an international monetary coup on August 15, 1971, at a time when the global monetary system was already saturated with dollars. In the context of the 21st century, it is a fallacy to view China as an enemy; rather, it represents an Eastern axis of global equilibrium. Without such a counterweight, Europeans and ‘neo-Europeans’ in the non-North American Americas would remain resigned slaves to the United States. Anyone who advocates for the abduction of Maduro is either ill-informed—unaware of these realities—or is fully aware of the truth and acts with malice.”

Introduction: A Question of International Legality

From the perspective of international law, it is impossible to establish a legal framework for the military operation designated as “Operation Absolute Resolve,” through which the United States invaded the sovereign territory of Venezuela and abducted its president, Nicolás Maduro—an action executed in a manner akin to police entering a slum to apprehend traffickers.

Was Nicolás Maduro a legitimate president? Internally, the legitimacy of a Head of State or Government falls under the jurisdiction of that country’s judiciary, which, in this instance, recognized said legitimacy. However, what if the judicial structure is corrupted, as appears to have been the case regarding the recognition of Maduro’s legitimacy? In such a scenario, the matter falls within the scope of the Venezuelan people’s right to self-governance.

Only in the event of a threat to international peace and security or a severe internal crisis may the United Nations (UN)—acting through its technical bodies and its highest political echelon, the Security Council—intervene with a decision regarding the legitimacy of a head of state, as occurred following the 2010/2011 elections in Côte d’Ivoire.

In this case, although the legitimacy of Maduro’s mandate was widely regarded as highly questionable, his official status as the Venezuelan leader was formally accepted by the UN. This is evidenced by the fact that diplomatic channels and legal, political, and economic institutional relations were maintained—not only with the principal organ of the UN itself but also with all other agencies and bodies within the extensive global and regional UN system.

“What if President Maduro is indeed a narco-terrorist causing harm to the United States, as alleged in the indictments filed in the courts of New York and Florida?”

The Legacy of the Jay Treaty Agreements

The United States has recognized, since the Jay Treaty (1794), that international disputes are to be resolved through judicial or arbitral means via permanent or ad hoc international jurisdictional institutions. From the perspective of international law, if Nicolás Maduro were indeed committing the grave crimes of which he is accused, it would, in reality, constitute an act of aggression by the State of Venezuela against the United States.

While international law and justice safeguard the immunity of Heads of State and Government through the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, the principle of State Responsibility for the acts of its officials remains one of the most widely accepted tenets of customary international law. See: Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts 2001. 

There are two landmark cases in the jurisprudence of the World Court: Germany v. Italy (Case 143) and DRC v. Belgium (the “Arrest Warrant Case,”  – Case 121).

In light of this framework, the United States has effectively placed its national statutes, domestic judiciary, and executive law enforcement authority above international law, international jurists, and the police authority of the UN Security Council. How can anyone acting in good faith consider this legitimate? Either the law remains binding or it does not; in the latter case, we return to the primitive era of military “free-for-alls.” Was it not a mark of human progress to move away from that gladiatorial arena, where disputes were settled solely by force and among lions?

Venezuela: A State That Violates Human Rights?

Any scholar of international law is aware that the United States, rather than Venezuela, stands as the preeminent transgressor of human rights on a global scale. There are, in fact, two “United States”: the one portrayed in Hollywood cinema and the one that exists in reality. I refer to the latter— the state that invaded sovereign Venezuelan territory, resulting in the deaths of government employees with families, and boasted that the only American casualty was a sergeant with a dislocated finger.

Venezuela is currently undergoing a humanitarian crisis stemming from the domestic policies of Chavismo that brought Maduro to power; however, it is a fallacy to claim that Venezuela is fundamentally opposed to human rights. On the contrary, it is the United States that maintains an international policy hostile to human rights. The U.S. consistently refuses international monitoring by the quasi-judicial entities of the UN human rights system, continues the recurrent practice of capital punishment, and has a history of affronting international courts.

No nation—not even Russia—positions itself as aggressively toward international justice as the United States. Between the two, China appears more respectful and engaged, notwithstanding its domestic policy of prohibiting “humanitarian interventions” in its “internal affairs.”

Crucially, Venezuela accepts the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC), an institution under permanent assault by the United States. While the ICC is often viewed as a “Europeanized” tribunal that exhibits signs of bias in its rulings, the American practice of attacking and threatening its judges and prosecutors is inadmissible.

When the International Court of Justice (ICJ) condemned the United States for its military and paramilitary activities in Nicaragua [1], the American government not only disregarded the Court’s judgment—which it never recognized—but also insulted the Court, the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. Although Venezuela has its own conflicts with that Court, it has not displayed such insolence [2] toward its magistrates.

The scales of justice have two sides. However, the rule of law does not. The law has no side or position; it remains singular and universal.

Extraterritoriality of American Law and Justice

The abduction of Maduro on January 2, 2026, is a long-term consequence of the 1948 Marshall Plan—a project designed for European reconstruction, not the entire world. While the historical conditions that justified that era have vanished, the dominance of the dollar remains.

If the settlement of an international commercial transaction can fall under the jurisdiction of American law and courts simply because the dollar passes through a clearing bank on U.S. soil, then Chinese or Russian law could establish a counterpoint: asserting that their legislation and judiciary also apply to international business based, for instance, on ratione personae (by reason of the person).

The absurdity and abuse inherent in both scenarios are clear enough to blind even the sighted. Any tribal leader would understand that such parameters serve only to lead the world toward war.

Operation Absolute Resolve

The very name of the American military operation used to abduct Maduro does not mask its underlying despotism. “Operation Absolute Resolve” was an international crime that cannot be justified—neither by Maduro’s dictatorial domestic policies (which must be resolved by the Venezuelan people themselves) nor by his potential crimes against the United States, which ought to be addressed through the UN Security Council.

Regarding the dire situation of the Venezuelan nation, it is worth noting that far more severe internal massacres have occurred in history; yet, no state invaded Rwanda in 1994 to save the Tutsis. This is not to suggest we should lack solidarity with the Venezuelans, but rather that the right ends must be pursued through the right means. Achieving a “right” through “wrong” methods is legally invalid.

The U.S. Federal Court in New York

On January 5, 2026, Maduro was presented in chains before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY). Before the centenarian Federal Judge Alvin Hellerstein, Maduro declared that he was the President of Venezuela and had been militarily seized from his state. Subsequently, he was remanded to the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn.

From the perspective of American domestic law, “Operation Absolute Resolve” is viewed as legitimate; otherwise, the federal judge would have ordered Maduro’s release without prejudice to the continuation of the trial.

“Once you are in the courtroom, the judge doesn’t care how you got there.”

Within the United States legal system—consistent with the doctrine that its extraterritorial jurisdiction may supersede the precepts of international law—there exists a prevailing adage: “Once the defendant is before the court, the court will not inquire into the manner in which they were brought there.”

There are two primary precedents establishing the legality of this principle:

First, the case of Ker v. Illinois (1886): Frederick Ker fled to Peru after committing larceny in Chicago. A U.S. agent was dispatched to extradite him; however, rather than adhering to the formal treaty process, the agent abducted Ker at gunpoint and forcibly returned him to the United States. The Supreme Court ruled that Ker’s “forcible abduction” did not constitute a valid ground for the dismissal of his trial.

The second case is Frisbie v. Collins (1952): Shirley Collins was kidnapped in Illinois by Michigan police officers, “blackjacked” (assaulted with a weighted club), and forcibly transported to Michigan to stand trial for murder. The Supreme Court reaffirmed the rule, asserting that “there is nothing in the Constitution that requires a court to permit a guilty person… to escape justice because he was brought to trial against his will.”

Maduro’s contention that he was unlawfully abducted from the nation over which he holds a mandate stands no realistic chance of prevailing for any legal purpose.

In a widely publicized and relatively recent case, United States v. Alvarez-Machain (1992), this principle was once again invoked. In 1990, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) enlisted bounty hunters to abduct Dr. Humberto Alvarez-Machain from Mexican territory, based on allegations of his involvement in the torture of a DEA agent. The Supreme Court deliberated that the abduction did not violate the extradition treaty established between the United States and Mexico, predicated on the rationale that the conventional instrument contained no explicit prohibition against forcible abduction. This stance by the high court legitimizes the U.S. government’s capacity to legally—under the aegis of American domestic law—apprehend individuals on foreign soil for prosecution in the United States, even if such practices “shock the conscience” of the international community due to their “Wild West justice” overtones.

The Noriega Precedent

For Maduro, there is neither doubt nor hope: his trial is destined to follow the established “playbook.” In the case of United States v. Noriega (1990–1992), U.S. federal courts addressed the capture and prosecution of the Panamanian leader by systematically dismantling three primary defense theories: sovereign immunity, violations of international law, and the infringement of due process rights. Maduro’s defense is expected to be rejected according to this same judicial roadmap.

In the Noriega case, the District Court for the Southern District of Florida established the precedent that immunity does not constitute an individual “right,” but is rather a privilege granted by the Executive Branch of the United States. Consequently, since the United States recognized Eric Arturo Delvalle (and, subsequently, Guillermo Endara) as the legitimate presidents—rather than Noriega—the court deferred to the State Department’s position. It ruled that, absent official recognition from the President of the United States, a foreign leader cannot claim sovereign immunity in a U.S. courtroom.

Furthermore, the Ker-Frisbie doctrine was applied in response to Noriega’s allegation that he was brought to the United States via an illegal military invasion (Operation Just Cause), an act the defense characterized as “shocking to the conscience.”

Even Noriega’s arguments regarding violations of international treaties and conventions failed to restrain the court’s expansive powers. Noriega contended that the U.S. invasion violated the UN Charter and the OAS Charter, and that the U.S.-Panama Extradition Treaty was the sole legal mechanism for his transfer. However, in a controversial interpretation, the American court maintained that international agreements constitute law between States and do not apply to individuals, who, moreover, lack the standing to invoke them in their personal defense.

The Supreme Court in the Noriega Case

The Supreme Court declined to admit Noriega’s defense appeal. In 1998, following Noriega’s conviction and the subsequent rejection of his appeal by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, his attorneys petitioned the Supreme Court for judicial review. However, the Supreme Court issued what is known as a Certiorari Denied order—a refusal to review the merits of the case. Consequently, for Noriega, the final judgment remained that of the appellate court (the 11th Circuit).

Noriega was convicted by a U.S. jury in 1992 and later served sentences in the United States, France and Panama, where he died in 2017. (Reuters)

Prisoner of War Status

Just as with Noriega, Maduro’s fate will likely result in the Southern District of New York upholding the legality of his detention. Should he be convicted, Maduro may be granted the same status afforded to Noriega: that of a Prisoner of War under the Third Geneva Convention. Thus, like Noriega, Maduro may receive specialized treatment during his incarceration, such as being exempt from the requirement to wear standard prison attire.

American Extraterritoriality vs. the International Legal System

The extraterritoriality that the United States ascribes to its legal system effectively positions it above the foundational tenets of international law. This stance directly contravenes the UN Charter, specifically: the Principle of Self-Determination (Art. 1, § 2); the Principle of Sovereign Equality (Art. 2, § 1); and the Prohibition on the Use of Force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state (Art. 2, § 4). Furthermore, it violates Articles 19 and 21 of the Charter of the Organization of American States (Charter of Bogotá), which prohibit any state from intervening in the affairs of another through military occupation or coercive measures.

Under Article 51 of the UN Charter, the right to self-defense may only be exercised in response to an “armed attack.” Consequently, in the context of Maduro’s abduction, the right to self-defense rests with Venezuela—the state that was attacked.

“Since the settlement (clearing) of any dollar-denominated transaction requires the use of American banks located on U.S. soil, American courts argue that by utilizing this system—even for a transaction between a Brazilian and a Chinese national in France—you have implicitly consented to U.S. law and the jurisdiction of U.S. courts. This creates a borderless, international application of American statutes, such as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). By this logic, a Brazilian fraudster using a credit card at a shopping mall in Santos is subject to American criminal law. Does this stand to reason?”

MAGA (Make America Great Again): The “Third Layer”

The military assault on Venezuela uses a superficial pretext: the fact that President Maduro is the target of criminal proceedings in Florida and New York. This is merely the surface layer.

The U.S. government does not hide the second layer: strategic interest in Venezuelan oil. This is evidenced by declarations suggesting the U.S. will administer Venezuela and “reimburse itself” with Venezuelan petroleum. As reported by the New York Times, The Guardian, and the BBC:

“The United States will be ‘heavily involved’ in Venezuela’s oil industry following the operation to capture Maduro, Trump told Fox News. He stated: ‘We have the biggest oil companies in the world… and we’re going to be very involved in that.’” (Trump – Now News).

These clarifications regarding oil are central to the MAGA platform. However, there is a third layer to the abduction of Maduro essential to the MAGA objective. It is not merely the possession of oil that serves MAGA, but rather the currency in which that energy commodity is traded.

The ultimate objective transcends oil itself. The strategic intent is to preserve what former French Finance Minister Valéry Giscard d’Estaing described as America’s “exorbitant privilege”: the ability to run deficits without sanction by printing more currency or issuing debt in its own denomination. This allows the U.S. to import global goods and services while maintaining the power to “guillotine” its enemies by excluding them from the dollar clearing system.

The concept of post-WWII antagonism serves the interests of the United States, rather than those of Europe or the rest of the world. For its own survival, the United States requires that China and Russia ‘haunt’ the West, as the very notion of the ‘protection’ sold by the United States depends on the existence of these specters.

Petrodollar vs. Petroyuan: The Battle for the Status Quo

The core of the Trump administration’s strategy is the preservation of the status quo. In the 1970s, the United States solidified global dependence on its currency through the creation of the “petrodollar.” By virtue of an agreement between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia, oil—the planet’s essential energy commodity—became inextricably linked to the dollar. Consequently, not only was global debt denominated in dollars, but the world’s primary energy source became tied to a currency that, following the Nixon Shock of 1971, possessed no metallic backing other than global confidence (fiducia) in Washington.

Furthermore, the United States exerts dominant influence over the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, and private banking networks operating through SWIFT—a cooperative society under profound American sway.

In this landscape, the global monetary structure is tethered to the White House, granting it the power to “strangle” any adversary economically. By excluding enemies from the international monetary system, the U.S. can isolate a nation as if it existed on a different planet. As previously noted, the U.S. further asserts that its laws apply to anyone utilizing the dollar, regardless of location. This grants American law and justice an absolute extraterritoriality that is often more pervasive and efficient than the international legal system itself.

States find themselves subject to American law simply because they use the dollar—a logic as flawed as suggesting that everyone in the world should be bound by U.S. legislation simply because they speak English.

The Rise of the Petroyuan and the CIPS Alternative

Since 2015, China has developed a parallel, independent system to challenge this dollarized structure: the CIPS (Cross-border Interbank Payment System)—the equivalent of SWIFT—and the e-CNY (China’s digital currency).

The commercial partnership between China (the world’s largest creditor) and Venezuela, supported by Russia and Iran and viewed favorably by the BRICS nations, represents a fundamental threat to the MAGA doctrine. If transactions between China and Venezuela are settled via the CIPS/e-CNY system, the e-CNY gains “energy backing” from Venezuelan oil. This facilitates the rise of the “petroyuan,” which undermines the petrodollar by introducing global monetary competition. Is such competition inherently wrong? A monopoly serves only the monopolist.

Conclusion

“Operation Absolute Resolve”—under the pretext of arresting Maduro and securing Venezuelan oil—seeks to provide an “absolute solution” to the primary obstacle facing the MAGA agenda: the challenge posed by Chinese competition to American global monetary control.

Bibliography and Research Sources

Core Literature

• Brown, E. H. (2012). The Web of Debt: The Shocking Truth About Our Money System and How We Can Break Free (5th ed.). Third Millennium Press.

• Hudson, M. (2021). Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire (3rd ed.). ISLET-Verlag.

• Prashad, V. (2013). The Poorer Nations: A Possible History of the Global South. Verso Books.

• Cogley, D. (2025). The Petrodollar – The US-Saudi Deal that Ruined the World. Published March 10, 2025.

U.S. Regulatory and Legislative Framework

• OFAC (Office of Foreign Assets Control): The agency within the U.S. Department of the Treasury responsible for administering and enforcing economic sanctions. The primary legal basis for these actions is the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

  • Reference: OFAC Sanctions Guidelines on Venezuela

• Congressional Research Service (CRS): Provides updated reports to Congress regarding the effectiveness and jurisdictional limits of sanctions.

  • Reference: CRS Report: Venezuela and U.S. Sanctions Policy (Dec/2025)

Jurisdictional and Strategic Analysis

• Secondary Sanctions Analysis: A technical study on how “Secondary Sanctions” compel third-country corporations (such as Repsol or Eni) to comply with Washington’s mandates.

  • Reference: Gibson Dunn Analysis: Regulatory Changes in Venezuela 2026

• Expansion of CIPS in Latin America: The Chinese Cross-border Interbank Payment System (CIPS) is expanding as an alternative to SWIFT to prevent transactions from being intercepted by U.S. authorities.

  • Reference: CIPS Co., Ltd. Official Site – Participants and Settlement Volumes

• Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS): A study on the third “China Policy Paper for Latin America” (released late 2025), focusing on the region’s financial autonomy.

  • Reference: China’s Expanding Influence in Latin America in 2025

Digital Currency and Decarbonization/De-dollarization

• e-CNY (Digital Yuan) Pilot Programs in Oil Trade: China is testing the e-CNY for energy commodity transactions, representing a critical juncture in Venezuelan “de-dollarization.”

• Project mBridge (BIS): The Bank for International Settlements (BIS) oversees the use of Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs), such as the e-CNY, in cross-border payments.

  • Reference: BIS – Project mBridge: CBDC Settlement

• People’s Bank of China (PBoC): The January 2026 Action Plan aimed at establishing the Digital Yuan as an international “reserve and deposit currency.”

  • Reference: Digital Yuan Action Plan 2026 – PBoC / Global Times

[1] Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America) – Merits, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 14. For further analysis on the subject of the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) compulsory jurisdiction and the United States’ subsequent withdrawal, see: Scott, Gary L., and Craig L. Carr. “The ICJ and Compulsory Jurisdiction: The Case for Closing the Clause.” The American Journal of International Law, vol. 81, no. 1, 1987, pp. 57–76. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/2202131.

[2] The United States Ambassador to the UN, Jeane Kirkpatrick, dismissed the International Court of Justice as a “semi-legal, semi-juridical, semi-political body, which nations sometimes accept and sometimes don’t.”

[3] The OFAC (Office of Foreign Assets Control) is the agency within the U.S. Department of the Treasury that executes sanctions. Its primary legal mandate is derived from the IEEPA (International Emergency Economic Powers Act).

Disclaimer: The author originaly drafted the concepts and legal arguments of this work in Portuguese. Artificial Intelligence (AI) was utilized solely as a linguistic and stylistic assistant for translation and academic English refinement. The author has personally reviewed, verified, and approved all translated content for legal accuracy and technical consistency.