However, this will widely be seen by other nations as a very dangerous precedent whereby leaders of foreign governments can be arrested and tried seemingly at will, undermining the foundations of international law and state sovereignty and risking similar actions elsewhere (Ukraine, Taiwan, etc.).

This doesn't mean Maduro won't be tried - there are few constraints on executive action under the current administration and the vague nature of international law concerning the legitimacy of leaders will bolster the case...

The Trump administration has officially refused to recognize Maduro. However, Trump himself wanted to negotiate directly with Maduro to secure access to Venezuelan oil and worked directly with him to repatriate Venezuelan migrants. It is only more recently that Trump has favored his removal...

Granting that Maduro wrested power unlawfully after losing the 2024 election, he has been regarded as the de facto leader of Venezuela by many countries. Leaders don't have to be elected to be recognized as leaders: this happens all the time...

Even if this case can be made, many other questions exist regarding the extraterritorial application of US law enforcement in apprehending Maduro. However, arguing that he is not the legitimate leader is not entirely straightforward...

The Trump administration will therefore either have to flout international law (which we have every reason to believe it will) or make a legal case that Maduro is not the legitimate leader of Venezuela (which it is doing), and can therefore be tried as a private citizen...

In short, as the President of Venezuela, the US has no basis under international law for trying Maduro in a domestic court, and such an action would upend a firmly established principle that is as old as international law itself...

The legal basis for trying the leader of a nation in a foreign court is limited to the conduct of "international crimes", which is largely limited to things like genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. Although even here, the law still leans in favor of functional immunity for leaders...

So what if the leader does something in an official capacity that another state doesn't like? The leader is considered to be acting on behalf of the state, meaning any wrongdoing can be attributed to the state as a whole. Addressing this wrongdoing could result in punitive actions, including force..

This immunity also extends to acts conducted in a private capacity, although this is generally agreed to apply to a narrower class of actors (such as heads of state)...

This also extends to a variety of other government actors, such as diplomats and ministers. The purpose is obvious: the organs of government must be able to conduct their activities without the interference of other states and without fear of personal cost for acting on behalf of the state...