UK Cabinet minister, Kemi Badenoch, has publicly defended the United States’ military operation in Venezuela that led to the capture of President Nicolás Maduro, describing the raid as “morally” justified and casting doubt on the continued relevance of the rules-based international order.
In an interview with the BBC’s Today programme, Badenoch departed from the cautious tone adopted by most senior British politicians, arguing that while the legality of the US action remained unclear, its moral basis was defensible.
“Morally, yes,” she said when asked whether sending special forces to seize Maduro was the right course of action. “Where the legal certainty is not yet clear, morally I do think it was the right thing to do.”
Her comments came amid growing unease in Westminster over the US operation, which Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has said Britain was not involved in and which Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper addressed by reaffirming the UK’s commitment to international law without directly criticising Washington.
Badenoch argued that Venezuela’s political reality made the situation different from previous US interventions criticised by Britain. Responding to comparisons with Margaret Thatcher’s condemnation of the US invasion of Grenada in 1983, she said Thatcher was right at the time but that the circumstances surrounding Venezuela were not the same.
“Venezuela was a brutal regime. We didn’t even recognise it as a legitimate government,” she said. “I think that what’s happened is quite extraordinary. But I understand why America has done it.”
She linked her stance to her personal background, saying her views were shaped by lived experience. “I grew up under a military dictatorship [in Nigeria], so I know what it’s like to have someone like Maduro in charge. I know what it’s like to have people celebrating in the street. So I’m not condemning the US,” she said.
While acknowledging that the raid raised “serious questions about the rules-based order”, Badenoch suggested that international law no longer carried the authority often ascribed to it. “As we all know, international law is what countries agree to,” she said. “Once people decide they don’t agree, there is no international law. There’s no world police, no world government, no world court. These are agreements.”
She also questioned why concerns about international law had not been raised earlier, citing comments by Venezuelan opposition leader María Machado. “She said Venezuela had already been invaded. It had been invaded by Russia, by Iran, by Hezbollah. Where were the people talking about international law then?” Badenoch asked.
Pressed on remarks by Stephen Miller, President Donald Trump’s deputy chief of staff, who said the world was governed by “strength” and “force”, Badenoch indicated broad agreement. “The US has actually been saying this for a very long time,” she said, recalling Washington’s disengagement from the World Trade Organisation over alleged rule-breaking by other states.
“The world has changed. What I want to see is a strong Britain. We can’t control everything that the US does. Venezuela is very far away from here,” she added. “But what they do respect is strength. And we are getting weaker.”
Badenoch’s remarks marked a shift from her earlier response on 4 January, when she said the UK was “closely monitoring” developments and cautioned against rushing to judgement. In a post on X at the time, she described the situation as “fast-moving and extremely serious” and said the priority should be the views of Venezuelans “risking their lives in pursuit of democratic change”.
“There’s a lot of noise from people who couldn’t find Venezuela on a map yesterday,” she wrote, adding that it was not for external actors to second-guess motives or evidence before hearing further from the US administration and Venezuela’s democratic opposition.
The US operation was announced by President Trump, who said American forces had captured Maduro and his wife and that Maduro would face criminal proceedings in the United States. Trump later said the US would oversee Venezuela’s administration until conditions were in place for a democratic process.
International reaction has been mixed, with some governments warning about sovereignty and the use of force, while others have focused on the implications for Venezuela’s prolonged political and economic crisis.
In Britain, Sir Keir Starmer reiterated that the UK had no role in the operation and stressed the importance of international law, while officials said they were assessing the situation and monitoring the safety of British nationals in Venezuela.
Badenoch, no stranger to controversy
Badenoch’s recent defence of the US operation in Venezuela marks the latest episode in a series of controversies the British Cabinet minister has courted over her ties to Nigeria and her interpretation of Nigerian law. While she described the US raid as “morally … the right thing to do” and questioned the relevance of the rules-based international order, her comments follow earlier disputes in Nigeria over her personal identity and citizenship statements.
Badenoch, who was born in London to Nigerian parents in 1980 and spent part of her childhood in Nigeria and the United States, has repeatedly sparked debate over her connection to her country of heritage. In an interview on the Rosebud podcast in August 2025, she stated that while she is “Nigerian through ancestry,” she does not identify as Nigerian. “By identity I’m not really,” she said, noting that her sense of home lies with her current family in the United Kingdom. She added that she has not held a valid Nigerian passport for over 20 years.
Her comments about Nigerian citizenship drew sharp criticism from Nigerian officials and legal experts. Badenoch claimed in a CNN interview that she could not pass Nigerian citizenship to her children because she is a woman, asserting that the country’s laws make it “virtually impossible” for her to do so. “I have that citizenship by virtue of my parents; I can’t give it to my children because I’m a woman,” she said, contrasting this with what she described as the ease with which Nigerians acquire British citizenship.
The remarks prompted responses from several quarters in Nigeria. President Bola Tinubu’s spokesman, Bayo Onanuga, called on the UK government to send Badenoch “home for proper re-education”, accusing her of ignorance regarding Nigerian law. Human rights lawyer Femi Falana described her statements as “a display of utter ignorance” and accused her of misinforming the British public to score political points. Former Senator Shehu Sani questioned why Badenoch continued to seek Nigerian citizenship for her children after openly rejecting her Nigerian identity, saying she should “just enjoy her adopted home and leave us alone.”
The Foundation for Peace Professionals (PeacePro) petitioned the UK Parliament and the Conservative Party, urging a formal review of Badenoch’s comments, a correction or apology, and the establishment of guidelines to prevent ministers from making public statements about foreign nations that misrepresent legal realities. PeacePro’s Executive Director, Abdulrazaq Hamzat, argued that Badenoch’s remarks “reflect a recurring pattern of commentary that undermines the image of Nigeria on the global stage” and warned that repeated misinformation from a UK Cabinet minister could strain diplomatic relations.
Chief Niyi Aborisade, a British-trained lawyer and human rights activist in Oyo State, also criticised Badenoch, describing her statements as “defamation against Nigeria.” Aborisade emphasised that the Nigerian Constitution does not discriminate against women in matters of citizenship and highlighted that Badenoch benefited from liberal British nationality laws, which granted her citizenship at birth.
The controversies surrounding Badenoch’s statements on Nigeria’s laws and her personal identity have persisted for years, and they continue to generate attention as she comments on international issues, including her defence of the US operation in Venezuela. Analysts note that her public persona combines global political engagement with a pattern of provocative remarks about her country of ancestry, a stance that regularly fuels debate both in the United Kingdom and Nigeria.
