In January 2026, U.S. military forces conducted a strike inside Venezuela aiming to capture Nicolás Maduro, resulting in the deaths of more than 50 people. The raid, intended to bring Maduro to face federal charges, raised significant legal questions regarding the use of military force in what was treated domestically as a criminal prosecution.

Most recently, on June 12, 2026, President Donald Trump announced a U.S. military operation that killed Héctor Rusthenford Guerrero Flores, identified as the leader of the Tren de Aragua criminal gang. Guerrero Flores had been formally indicted by the Justice Department on charges including racketeering, drug trafficking, firearms offenses, and supporting terrorism. His indictment was part of a coordinated investigation involving federal prosecutors, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the FBI, U.S. Marshals, local police, and international partners. Despite these serious allegations, under U.S. law, Guerrero Flores was considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

The recent military strike reportedly targeting an indicted criminal suspect who was previously pursued through the judicial system represents an escalation in the administration’s approach. Critics argue this shift reflects a troubling bypass of due process, as the government moves away from pursuing criminal suspects through established legal channels toward authorizing lethal force without public legal justification.

Questions have emerged about the legal authority underpinning these operations. The use of military force against accused criminals rather than capturing and prosecuting them in court raises concerns about constitutional limits and the rule of law. Military officers, who are trained to distinguish between combat and law enforcement roles, have reportedly continued to execute orders facilitating these strikes despite a lack of clear public explanations for the legality of such actions.

Legal experts and observers emphasize that civilian control of the military rests on following lawful orders, which do not extend to extrajudicial killings disguised as counterterrorism or law enforcement operations. Senior military leaders, including Gen. Francis Donovan, commander of U.S. Southern Command, and Adm. Frank Bradley, commander of U.S. Special Operations Command, have been urged to provide transparency regarding the authority, evidence, and procedures that support the targeting of suspected criminals in military operations.

The broader implications extend beyond the Venezuelan context. The precedent of designating criminal suspects as military targets risks eroding distinctions between law enforcement and armed conflict, with potential consequences for domestic use of military force. Analysts caution that blurring these lines risks undermining constitutional protections and could lead to expanded executive power over both foreign and domestic affairs.

Supporters of the administration’s actions argue that combating transnational criminal organizations requires flexible, decisive military intervention, especially given the global threat these groups pose. However, detractors call for adherence to due process and accountability, underscoring that the use of lethal force should not replace judicial proceedings.

Amid these developments, calls for public accountability and legal scrutiny persist. The question remains whether U.S. military leaders can justify their involvement in operations that target indicted suspects outside traditional criminal justice mechanisms, and what legal frameworks govern such actions under current U.S. law.