Maduro is out. Whether that serves U.S. interests remains to be seen.

After years of increasingly brutal oppression, Venezuela is finally free of dictator Nicolás Maduro after he was captured last Saturday by the U.S. military in Caracas. Exiled Venezuelans across the world took to the streets to celebrate. “My joy is too big,” said a Venezuelan in Chile.

Many across the world share that joy. Freedom advocates longed for Maduro’s ousting for years. Footage of him in shackles is a welcome sight for those of us who care about individual rights. But there’s a problem: the military operation that led to Maduro’s capture may not be legal or in America’s interest.

Maduro is a murderous dictator who must face consequences for his brutal oppression of Venezuelans. His socialist dictatorship, hostile to human life, crushed Venezuelans’ freedoms for years. He has forced almost eight million Venezuelans to flee since 2014, causing one of the largest displacement crises in recent memory. 

The Venezuelan regime assassinated dissenters, unlawfully detained opposition leaders (such as Maria Corina Machado), and still holds political prisoners hostage. The regime’s hostility towards freedom cannot be overstated.

But the justice in Maduro’s collapse doesn’t make the U.S. government’s actions legitimate.

Some have argued the military operation leading to Maduro’s arrest violated Venezuela’s right to self-determination. But that’s not a concern anyone should have, and that’s not what makes the operation questionable.

The principle of “self-determination” does not include the establishment of a dictatorship. Governments exist with the sole purpose of protecting individual rights. A government cannot be legitimately established with the purpose of oppressing its people, like Maduro’s was. Such a government is lawless and has no right to exist. In principle, it is not illegitimate for a free nation to topple an authoritarian regime, assuming that decision is made in the self-interest of the free country and in accordance with its own laws. 

There should be no concern over the “rights” of a dictatorship, which deserves to be destroyed. The problem is that the U.S. may have acted against its own Constitution and perhaps its self-interest.

Law professor Ilya Somin argues that the U.S. incursion in Venezuela is illegal because it lacks congressional authorization. Somin explains that “the initiation of any large-scale military action requires congressional authorization” and that the air strikes in Caracas and subsequent capture of Maduro far exceed the president’s authority. 

In an interview, political commentator and president of the Board of the Ayn Rand Institute Yaron Brook agreed that the Trump administration’s move may be unconstitutional. Brook added that, even leaving legality aside, it is yet to be seen whether Maduro’s capture is in the interest of the U.S. at all.

The administration’s justification for the operation is muddy. Per Secretary Marco Rubio, this was about the war on drugs and bringing Maduro to justice in America: “Maduro is the head of the Cartel de Los Soles, a narco-terror organization that has taken control of the country. And he is under indictment for pushing drugs into the United States.” President Trump, on the other hand, has indicated that the goal is to recoup stolen oil: “We built Venezuela’s oil industry with American talent, drive and skill, and the socialist regime stole it from us during those previous administrations.”

This unclarity in motives is part of what contributes to skepticism about American interests here. “The legitimate interest of the US government should be the protection of the individual rights of its citizens,” argued Brook. “Is [the operation in Venezuela] in any way protecting the individual rights of Americans? That is hard to tell, because we don’t know why they did it.”

Brook stated that the benefits to America’s interests must outweigh the costs, including monetary and human, for this operation to be morally legitimate. If the goal is to simply put Maduro on trial, or to try and stop the flow of drugs, that’s not legitimate. “[Maduro’s detention and trial] will have zero impact on the flow of drugs from Venezuela. . . and [the operation] would be completely immoral.” (Brook is a fierce critic of the war on drugs.)

The potential American interest at play has to do with turning Venezuela into a rights-respecting country. It’s not America’s role to bring Democracy to foreign countries, says Brook. But under the Maduro regime many enemies of the United States, including Russians, Iranians, and even members of Hezbollah, find haven in the country. Getting them out would weaken their influence in America’s favor.