Trump vs. UN: Why His Actions Might Be Legal? An Investigation

UNBRIDLED DEMON OR SUPREME ENFORCER?

Essay-investigation: on what basis does Trump trample international law — and what if he has the right to do so?

Disclaimer:
This material is a research essay prepared by the editorial board of the journals Kafedra and Sfornews as part of a series of analytical investigations. The work is based on the methodology of systemic diagnostics, which implies analysing events not only through the prism of simple human logic or ethics, but also using all documents, artefacts and alternative legal constructs available to the editorial board. The scope of our research includes materials that may not have wide public recognition, but which nevertheless allow us to clarify the situation and provide an understandable explanation for what is happening — so that what we observe does not appear surreal, but acquires internal logic and coherence. We do not claim that the proposed interpretation is the only correct or officially recognised one. We invite readers to join our research and independently evaluate the arguments presented. The material is not a political statement, investment recommendation or call to action. All conclusions are probabilistic in nature and reflect the author’s position of the editorial board.

Introduction: the paradox of impunity

From the point of view of current international legislation and the UN’s position, the actions of US President Donald Trump in 2025–2026 appear unprecedented and clearly unlawful. Military strikes on Venezuela and Iran, the capture of President Nicolás Maduro, withdrawal from 66 international organisations, including the WHO and the UN Human Rights Council, threats to annex Greenland and the Panama Canal — all this, according to the vast majority of international lawyers, constitutes a gross violation of the UN Charter and the basic principles of international law.

But here is the paradox: Trump acts as if he knows that his actions will have no legal consequences. He does not just “violate” — he ignores the very system that could condemn him.

The question we pose in this investigation: under what conditions could Trump’s actions be not just lawful, but a duty? What if behind his seemingly “unbridled” behaviour lies not arbitrariness, but an alternative legal construct that makes his actions legitimate — from the point of view of a different, more fundamental law?

Part 1. Facts: what Trump did and why it is “unprecedented” from the UN’s point of view

1.1. Military operations without Security Council authorisation

On 3 January 2026, the United States carried out military strikes against Venezuela and captured President Nicolás Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores, bringing them to New York for trial on drug trafficking charges. Trump called the operation an “emergency military operation” and stated that Venezuela’s military capabilities had been disabled. The Russian Foreign Ministry condemned this “armed act of aggression”. Venezuelan authorities called the incident an “act of war” and broke off diplomatic relations with the United States.

Earlier, in January 2026, the US attacked Iran’s nuclear facilities.

From the point of view of the UN Charter, these actions constitute a direct violation of Article 2(4), which prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. As the Chinese ambassador stated at an emergency Security Council meeting on 6 January 2026, the US “circumvented the Security Council” and acted in defiance of international law. Economist Jeffrey Sachs characterised US actions as a “serious violation of the UN Charter” and “economic strangulation”. Experts from the Brookings Institution called the operation “tactically effective, but legally questionable”.

1.2. Withdrawal from international organisations

On 22 January 2026, Trump officially withdrew the US from the World Health Organization. The withdrawal process had been initiated a year earlier, on 20 January 2025, by a Trump executive order accusing the WHO of “Chinacentricity” during the COVID19 pandemic. According to WHO data, US debt to the organisation exceeded $260 million.

Global health expert Lawrence Gostin stated: “From a legal standpoint, it is absolutely clear that the US cannot officially withdraw from the WHO until it fulfills its financial obligations.” A publication in Just Security noted that the WHO Constitution “does not contain a clause allowing unilateral withdrawal”.

Then, under Executive Order 14199, the US withdrew from 66 international organisations, including 31 UN bodies — UNESCO, the UN Human Rights Council, the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA), the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), the UN Peacebuilding Commission and others. The text of the document states that US participation in their activities “is contrary to the interests of the United States”.

1.3. Threats to the sovereignty of allies

Trump has declared his intention to “take back” the Panama Canal, make Canada the 51st US state, purchase Greenland and “own Gaza”. These statements, even if not implemented, undermine the fundamental principle of international law — the sovereign equality of states.

Part 2. A scenario in which Trump’s actions would be lawful

Now — the main point. Suppose there is an alternative legal reality in which Trump’s actions are not a violation, but on the contrary, a restoration of justice.

2.1. Key hypothesis: Russia is not the legitimate successor of the USSR

According to the UN Charter, the permanent member of the Security Council is the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Not the Russian Federation, but precisely the USSR.

After the dissolution of the USSR in 1991, Russia’s membership in the UN and the Security Council was formalised through a letter from President Yeltsin of 24 December 1991 requesting that the name “Russian Federation” be used instead of “USSR”. This was not a formal procedure for changing the successor — it was an administrative replacement of a nameplate.

International lawyer Yehuda Zvi Blum argued that “with the termination of the existence of the Soviet Union itself, its membership in the UN should have automatically ceased, and Russia should have been admitted to membership in the same manner as other former Soviet republics.”

Thus, the legal legitimacy of the Russian Federation’s membership in the UN and, critically, its veto right in the Security Council has never been flawless. Ukrainian diplomats, in particular, have argued that Russia was never formally recognised as the successor of the USSR, and therefore its veto should be annulled.

Resolutions have also been introduced in the US Congress (H.Res. 959) expressing the position that Congress “does not recognise the Russian Federation as the inheritor of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics seat as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council”.

2.2. What follows from this hypothesis?

If Russia is not the lawful successor of the USSR, then:

2.3. How does this change the assessment of Trump’s actions?

Now reread Trump’s actions through this prism:

Trump’s action	From the UN’s point of view	From the point of view of the hypothesis of Russia’s illegitimacy
Invasion of Venezuela	Violation of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter	If the UN Security Council is illegitimate (due to Russia’s unlawful presence), then its authorisation is not required. The US acts as the “successor” of global responsibility.
Capture of Maduro	Kidnapping of a head of state	If Venezuela is recognised as a “drugtrafficking state” and its government is illegitimate, then the capture is an “arrest of a criminal”.
Withdrawal from WHO and other organisations	Violation of the organisations’ constitutions	If these organisations were created with the participation of the USSR, and the USSR legally no longer exists, then their legitimacy can also be challenged. The US is leaving “invalid” institutions.
Threats to Greenland and the Panama Canal	Undermining the sovereignty of Denmark and Panama	If the old system of international treaties (based on the postwar order) is invalid, then these territories are “noman’sland” or subject to revision.

2.4. The role of the EU: why is Europe “silent” or agreeing?

The European Union, despite rhetorical condemnation, is not taking real measures against Trump. Sanctions are not being imposed, military responses are not being planned. Why?

If the hypothesis is correct, then the EU also recognises the legal uncertainty of Russia’s status and, consequently, of all institutions built on the postwar world order. European countries may already be negotiating a new security architecture in which the US will play a dominant role and Russia will not. This is precisely why the EU has for the first time extended sanctions against Russia for 12 months (instead of six) — they are preparing for a long game in which the old rules do not work.

2.5. Privatisation and “illegal heritage”

Recall that privatisation in the 1990s in Russia, from the point of view of a number of experts and legal assessments, was carried out with significant violations. The Russian Prosecutor General’s Office has been examining cases challenging the legality of privatisation transactions from the 1990s, which were allegedly conducted “in violation of Russia’s economic sovereignty and its defence capabilities”. There are assessments that “the entire voucher privatisation of the 1990s was illegal.”

The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation has recognised the privatisation of certain enterprises in the 1990s as illegal. The transfer of objects into private ownership in the 1990s was often approved by local authorities, although it should have been coordinated at the government level.

If privatisation was carried out with violations, then all large fortunes created on the basis of that privatisation can be reviewed. This explains why Western elites so easily “betray” Russian oligarchs — they know that their property is legally vulnerable.

Part 3. Who is Trump in this scenario?

In this alternative reality, Trump is not an “unbridled demon” trampling on laws. He is the supreme enforcer who acts on the basis of a law that is older and more fundamental than the UN Charter and postwar agreements.

He acts as:

Part 4. Why this matters to the ordinary person

If our hypothesis is correct, then:

Conclusion: impunity as a sign of legitimacy

We are not claiming that the hypothesis of Russia’s illegitimacy as the successor of the USSR is officially recognised. We are asserting something else: if this hypothesis is accepted, then Trump’s actions cease to be “unprecedented” and “unlawful” — they become logical, consistent and even necessary.

Trump behaves not as a destroyer, but as a sanitation worker who cleans out a system based on the legal fraud of 1991. His impunity is not a weakness of international law, but a sign that the old international law is no longer in force, and the new one has not yet been written.

In this zone of uncertainty, the one who acts first wins. Trump acts. The EU watches. Russia “goes through the archives”. And ordinary people are left with the question: on whose side is the law?

Invitation to joint research

The editorial board of the journals Kafedra and Sfornews invites lawyers, historians, political scientists, economists and all interested readers to join our research project. We have at our disposal documents and artefacts that allow us to look at ongoing events from a different angle. We are convinced that only through joint efforts — through the exchange of hypotheses, factchecking and interdisciplinary analysis — can we get closer to understanding the foundation on which the modern world order actually stands.

Subscribe to Kafedra on Zen and to SforNews to follow the development of our investigation. In future materials, we will continue to examine the legal aspects of succession, privatisation and international treaties, and will also offer specific tools for protecting assets in conditions of growing uncertainty.

List of sources

[1] “Trump revealed details of US operation in Venezuela” — [1tv.ru], 3 January 2026.
[2] “Trump said he watched the operation to capture Maduro like a TV show” — [tvzvezda.ru], 3 January 2026.
[3] “Trump called US actions in Venezuela an ’emergency military operation'” — [tvzvezda.ru], 3 January 2026.
[4] “US officially withdraws from WHO” — Public Radio of Armenia, 23 January 2026.
[5] “Kirill Dmitriev called US withdrawal from WHO an important signal for its reform” — Kommersant, 23 January 2026.
[6] “US officially withdraws from WHO. The organisation is left without one of its largest donors” — BBC News Russian Service, 23 January 2026.
[7] “It became known that the US left the WHO with a huge debt of $260 million” — [[news.rambler.ru]](https://news.rambler.ru/), 23 January 2026.
[8] “Explainer: U.S. to withdraw from 66 int’l organizations. Here’s the full list” — [[china.org.cn]](https://china.org.cn/), 8 January 2026.
[9] “These are the 66 global organizations the Trump administration is leaving” — Associated Press, 8 January 2026.
[10] “Trump signed an order to withdraw the US from 66 international organisations, including 31 UN structures” — Current Time, 8 January 2026.
[11] “Russia and the UN” — Wikipedia.
[12] “The legitimate heiress: how Russia took the USSR’s seat in the UN Security Council” — Russia Today, 24 December 2016.
[13] “The game of ‘continuer’: how Russia fraudulently took its place in the United Nations?” — [[2plus2.ua]](https://2plus2.ua/), 3 May 2025.
[14] “Institutional desert. Why Putin, Kerimov and Kadyrov were needed in the Wildberries deal” — Carnegie Endowment.
[15] “Former owners of a Russian plant could not prove privatisation in the 1990s” — [[news.ru]](https://news.ru/), 16 December 2024.
[16] “Supreme Court recognised privatisation of a Russian plant in the 1990s as illegal” —
[17] “Russia and the United Nations” — Wikipedia.
[18] “Ukraine Doubts Russia’s UN Security Council Membership” — KyivPost, 15 March 2026.
[19] “117 HRES 959 IH: Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that Congress does not recognize the Russian Federation as the inheritor of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics seat as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council” — [[Congress.gov]](https://congress.gov/).
[20] “The US capture of Nicolás Maduro” — UK Parliament Commons Library, 12 June 2026.
[21] “Making sense of the US military operation in Venezuela” — Brookings Institution, 5 January 2026.
[22] “The US is driving a public health emergency of international concern” — BMJ Group, 26 March 2026.
[23] “Without The US, The World Health Organization Cannot Fulfill Its Mission” — Health Affairs Forefront, 11 February 2026.
[24] “Has the U.S. Actually Withdrawn from the World Health Organization?” — Just Security, 29 January 2026.
[25] “The US officially withdraws from the WHO, leaving behind a debt of $260 million” — [vietnam.vn], 23 January 2026.

© Tatyana Burmagina, EditorinChief of the journals Kafedra and Sfornews