The Trump administration's audacious capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro has plunged Washington into a profound legal and political crisis, raising stark questions about the limits of presidential power and the future of US intervention abroad.
An Unprecedented Escalation
In a dramatic, middle-of-the-night operation that reportedly rocked Caracas with explosions, US forces seized President Maduro and his wife, transporting them via warship to face narco-terrorism conspiracy charges in New York. This move represents an unprecedented escalation, surpassing even historic interventions in Panama and Iraq according to legal scholars.
Jimmy Gurule, a professor at Notre Dame Law School and former assistant US attorney, minced no words in his assessment: “This is clearly a blatant, illegal and criminal act.”
The capture on Saturday 3 January 2026 – exactly 36 years after the surrender of Panama's Manuel Noriega – caps months of aggressive US military action. Since September, the administration has conducted 35 known boat strikes, killing over 115 people, and positioned a naval armada off Venezuela's coast.
The Looming Constitutional Clash
The operation has ignited a fierce debate over presidential authority. Congress has not authorised any military strike or law enforcement action against Venezuela, a critical distinction from the 1989 Panama invasion where US strategic interests like the Panama Canal were directly at stake.
Matthew Waxman, a Columbia University law professor and former Bush administration official, framed the coming battle: “The President will claim this fits within precedent supporting broad executive power... Critics will charge that this exceeds the bounds of presidential power without congressional authorization.”
While courts have historically deferred to the White House on national security, Gurule cautioned: “Great deference does not mean absolute deference and unfettered authority to do anything.”
A New 'Armed Conflict' and Its Consequences
The administration's legal rationale, revealed in an October memo obtained by The Associated Press, declares drug cartels operating from Venezuela to be unlawful combatants, placing the US in an “armed conflict” with them. This novel assertion effectively treats drug trafficking as a war justifying military force.
Michael Schmitt, a former Air Force lawyer and professor emeritus at the US Naval War College, stated bluntly: “Lawyers call it international armed conflict. Lay people call it war. So as a matter of law, we are now at war with Venezuela.”
The political fallout is immediate and divisive. Republican lawmakers largely welcomed Maduro's removal, while Democrats warned of dangerous precedents. Senate Majority Leader John Thune praised the armed forces, whereas Senator Chuck Schumer warned: “The idea that Trump plans to now run Venezuela should strike fear in the hearts of all Americans.”
Senator Mark Warner highlighted the ominous echoes of Iraq, noting the administration's plan to use Venezuela's oil revenue to pay costs. Waxman identified this as a major legal flashpoint: “For example, a big issue will be who really owns Venezuela’s oil?”
With Secretary of State Marco Rubio citing operational secrecy for not briefing lawmakers beforehand, Congress is pushing back. The Senate is expected to vote on a bipartisan war powers resolution to block further use of force without authorisation, setting the stage for a historic constitutional confrontation.
