UK Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch has weighed into the growing international debate over the recent U.S. military intervention in Venezuela, arguing that while the operation may sit on shaky legal ground, it was morally justified.
In separate interviews with the BBC, Badenoch said she was not convinced that the legal framework underpinning President Donald Trump’s decision to remove Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro from power had been clearly established. Still, she insisted that legality and morality do not always move in lockstep.
“Where the legal certainty is not yet clear, morally, I do think it was the right thing to do,” she said during an appearance on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.
Badenoch described the intervention as extraordinary, but said it was difficult to ignore the realities of Maduro’s rule. She characterised his government as brutal and oppressive, adding bluntly: “He was running a brutal regime, and I’m glad he’s gone.”
Her comments, however, went beyond endorsement. Badenoch acknowledged that the U.S. action raises uncomfortable questions about the global rules-based order, particularly how international law is interpreted and enforced when powerful nations intervene militarily in sovereign states.
So far, the UK government has stopped short of directly condemning Washington’s move or declaring it a breach of international law. Instead, officials have repeated their long-standing position that Maduro was an “illegitimate president.”
That stance has not satisfied everyone. Several Labour MPs, alongside opposition parties including the Liberal Democrats, the Green Party and the Scottish National Party, have called on the government to formally denounce the operation and explicitly label it illegal.
Badenoch also revealed that her perspective is shaped by personal history. She referenced her childhood in Nigeria during periods of military rule, saying the experience gave her a firsthand understanding of what life under authoritarian leadership looks like.
Still, she was careful to draw limits. Badenoch warned against turning U.S.-style intervention into a default response, stressing that democratic societies should not be treated the same way as authoritarian regimes. Hypothetical intervention in places like Greenland, she argued, would be wholly inappropriate, noting that such decisions must rest with Denmark and the people of Greenland themselves.
The debate now sits at the uneasy intersection of law, morality and power, a reminder that foreign policy decisions rarely come with clean answers, only consequences.
