The renowned Nigerian Human Rights Lawyer, Femi Falana (SAN), has sharply criticized what he describes as former US President Donald Trump’s “global gangsterism,” particularly regarding his foreign policy decisions and alleged military actions. This comprehensive analysis will explore why these actions have drawn such significant international condemnation, focusing on the disregard for established legal frameworks. Experts argue that Trump’s approach, characterized by unilateral decisions and a perceived bypassing of legislative approval, raises serious questions about international law and the role of presidential power. Understanding Trump foreign policy explained through this lens reveals a pattern that legal scholars and human rights advocates find deeply troubling.
The core of Falana’s critique centers on the alleged disregard for both the United States Constitution and international legal norms. The US Constitution typically mandates congressional approval for military engagements, a system designed to ensure checks and balances on presidential authority. However, reports indicate instances where such approval was not sought, leading to a significant debate around presidential authority vs international law. This tension highlights a crucial aspect of global governance where a nation’s domestic legal processes are intertwined with its international obligations.
One prominent example cited by Falana is the alleged bombing of Iran. Several months prior to the public criticism, Trump reportedly authorized military strikes against Iran without obtaining the necessary congressional approval. This move was widely condemned as unconstitutional and set a dangerous precedent, signaling a willingness to bypass established legal procedures for foreign military interventions. Such actions often trigger widespread concern about their legality and potential for escalation.
Further allegations include threats against Nigeria. In November of the preceding year, Trump reportedly vowed to attack Nigeria “gun-a-blazing,” citing alleged “Christian genocide.” This was followed by reports on December 25, 2025, that the United States had launched “powerful and deadly” airstrikes against militants in northwestern Nigeria, again, allegedly without congressional sanction. These incidents contribute to the ongoing discussion about Donald Trump military actions update and their legal standing.
The most intense condemnation, however, followed the alleged bombing of Caracas, Venezuela. This event reportedly led to the overthrow of President Nicolás Maduro and the deaths of numerous unarmed civilians. Following the invasion, Trump announced the capture of a foreign head of state and his wife, subsequently charging them in a US District Court on allegations of terrorism and narcotics trafficking. Beyond the direct military action, Falana accused Trump of attempting to impose a transition regime in Venezuela, allegedly designed to facilitate the seizure of the country’s vast oil and gas resources, effectively turning it into a “new colony.”
Falana argues vehemently that these actions represent blatant violations of international law. The alleged abduction and extraordinary rendition of a sitting president of a sovereign state, he contends, is a profound breach of global norms. These events serve as a stark international law violations guide for what not to do when conducting foreign relations. Such acts, if proven, underscore a concerning trend towards unilateralism that can destabilize global order and undermine the principles of national sovereignty.
What is global gangsterism in foreign policy? Global gangsterism in foreign policy refers to a nation’s leader allegedly engaging in unilateral military actions and interventions that disregard domestic legal frameworks and international law. It often involves bypassing legislative approval and undermining the sovereignty of other nations, as criticized by legal experts regarding certain presidential decisions.
Despite ideological disagreements with the Maduro administration, Falana urged the United States Congress and judiciary to act decisively. He called on Congress to rise above partisan interests and sanction President Trump for the alleged illegal invasion of Venezuela. Simultaneously, he implored the US judiciary to resist what he termed a “dubious attempt” to use domestic courts to undermine the sovereign rights of the Venezuelan people. This highlights the internal mechanisms available to how to challenge presidential overreach. The debate between congressional approval vs unilateral military action is central to maintaining democratic principles.
Falana also expressed deep concern over the silence and inaction of the so-called international community, which he believes exposes profound hypocrisy and double standards in the enforcement of global norms. He explicitly called on the United Nations to take a firm stand in defense of Venezuela, insisting that the global body must demand justice and accountability to preserve its credibility. Failure to act, he warned, would amount to a betrayal of the UN Charter and further weaken international law.
Such alleged actions set dangerous global precedents, eroding trust in international institutions and the rule of law. The implications extend far beyond the immediate events, potentially shaping US foreign policy predictions 2026 and the broader landscape of international law challenges 2026. The erosion of sovereignty and the normalization of unilateral military interventions could lead to a more unstable and unpredictable world order.
In conclusion, Femi Falana’s strong condemnation of Donald Trump’s alleged military actions in Iran, Nigeria, and Venezuela underscores a critical debate about global governance and the boundaries of presidential power. The concept of “global gangsterism” encapsulates the perceived disregard for both domestic and international legal frameworks, challenging the very foundations of international relations. Understanding Trump foreign policy explained in this context is vital for comprehending the ongoing discussions about accountability, sovereignty, and the future of global peace.
