Delta Force operators struck Venezuela’s largest military complex before dawn Saturday. By nightfall, President Nicolás Maduro was in a Brooklyn detention center, his wife was in federal custody, and President Trump announced the United States would “run” Venezuela temporarily.
No congressional authorization. No declaration of war. No advance notification to legislative leadership.
The operation raises constitutional questions that make every other 2025 controversy look like a parking dispute.
Discussion
Absolutely right! Trump's decisiveness often bypasses the bureaucratic mess, but let's not forget the importance of checks and balances our founders envisioned. Even as we prioritize national security and take bold actions, we ought to ensure we remain committed to constitutional principles. That said, taking a hard stance against drug trafficking is certainly commendable and gives hope for a safer America.
If Trump bypasses Congress like this, what stops other presidents from doing the same?
Leave a Comment
Leave a Comment
What Actually Happened
U.S. Army Delta Force captured Maduro and his wife at their home inside Fuerte Tiuna, Venezuela’s largest military complex, early Saturday morning. The operation followed what Trump called “a large scale strike” on Venezuelan military targets.
Maduro landed in New York Saturday afternoon. By evening, he was at MDC Brooklyn facing a superseding indictment on drug trafficking charges originally filed in 2020. The charges allege he conspired to import “thousands of tons” of cocaine into the United States and worked with gangs designated as terrorist organizations.
Trump told reporters the U.S. would “run the country” during a transition period and “get the oil flowing.”
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said “President Trump sets the terms” on Venezuela’s future. Secretary of State Marco Rubio suggested Maduro had been offered “multiple very, very, very generous offers” to leave peacefully and “chose instead to act like a wild man.”
Venezuela’s Supreme Court ordered Vice President Delcy Rodriguez to assume presidential powers Saturday night. Rodriguez called Maduro’s capture “barbaric,” an “illegal and illegitimate kidnapping,” and demanded his immediate release.
The War Powers Question Nobody’s Answering
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war. Article II makes the president commander-in-chief of the armed forces.
Where the line falls between those powers has been contested since the Framers left the room. But this operation crosses into territory no modern president has claimed: unilateral military invasion of a sovereign nation to capture its head of state, followed by announced plans to govern that country.
The War Powers Resolution of 1973 requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of introducing armed forces into hostilities. It allows 60 days of military action without congressional authorization, extendable to 90 days.
But the Resolution was designed for emergency defensive actions and limited engagements—not regime change operations followed by announced U.S. administration of a foreign country. The legal framework doesn’t contemplate what happened Saturday because no president has attempted it.
When “Law Enforcement” Becomes “Invasion”
The Justice Department will likely argue this wasn’t an act of war – it was law enforcement. Maduro faced a valid federal indictment. The operation was an arrest, not an invasion.
That argument has problems. Delta Force isn’t a law enforcement agency – it’s an elite military unit designed for combat operations.
The “arrest” required bombing Venezuelan military installations and striking government targets. The operation resulted in U.S. forces occupying a sovereign nation’s largest military complex.
International law distinguishes between law enforcement operations with a nation’s consent and military operations against a nation’s will. Venezuela didn’t consent. Its government is calling it kidnapping. U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres called it “a dangerous precedent” that violates international law.
The domestic constitutional question mirrors the international one: Can a president order military strikes on a foreign country and capture its leader without congressional authorization, then call it law enforcement?
The Precedent That Terrifies Everyone
Democratic Senator Mark Warner, vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, stated the obvious: “Does this mean any large country can indict the ruler of a smaller adjacent country and take that person out? This would lead to total chaos, this theory of the case.”
The precedent works both ways. If the United States can indict foreign leaders, bomb their countries, capture them, and fly them to Brooklyn for trial, other nations can claim the same authority.
China could indict Taiwan’s president, strike Taipei, and call it law enforcement. Russia could indict Ukrainian leadership, bomb Kyiv, and cite U.S. precedent. Any nuclear power with global reach could target any smaller neighbor’s leadership, launch military operations, and frame it as executing valid warrants.
Trump’s theory of executive power – that a president can unilaterally order military operations against sovereign nations to enforce U.S. indictments – has no limiting principle. It applies to every country that can’t militarily resist.
“We’re Going to Run the Country”
Trump’s announcement that the U.S. would temporarily “run” Venezuela until a “safe, proper and judicious transition” occurs raises questions the Constitution doesn’t answer because the scenario never existed.
The United States has overthrown governments before—Iran in 1953, Guatemala in 1954, Chile’s elected government in 1973. But those operations were covert, deniable, and conducted through proxies. When the U.S. invaded countries directly—Grenada in 1983, Panama in 1989, Iraq in 2003—the justifications involved self-defense, protecting Americans, or eliminating weapons threats.
This operation involves none of those justifications. The stated purpose is arresting Maduro on drug charges and assuming control of Venezuela’s government and oil resources. Hegseth explicitly contrasted it with Iraq, saying the U.S. would gain “additional wealth and resources” without spending American blood long-term.
That framing—military action to secure economic resources—is legally problematic under both domestic and international law. The Constitution doesn’t authorize the president to invade countries for oil. International law prohibits wars of conquest and resource seizure.
What Congress Isn’t Saying
Congressional response has been muted. Warner expressed concerns about precedent. Other members issued carefully worded statements. Nobody has introduced a resolution challenging the operation’s legality or demanding Trump comply with the War Powers Resolution.
The silence reveals a hard truth: Congress has spent decades ceding war powers to the executive branch. Authorization for Use of Military Force resolutions from 2001 and 2002 remain on the books, stretched to justify operations the original drafters never imagined.
Congress could assert its war powers. It could demand briefings. It could cut funding. It could challenge the operation in court. It’s doing none of those things—at least not publicly or forcefully.
The constitutional check on presidential war-making has atrophied. Saturday’s operation demonstrates how thoroughly.
The Arrest That Might Not Hold
Maduro faces federal charges in the Southern District of New York. The superseding indictment alleges 25 years of cocaine trafficking conspiracy, enriching himself and Venezuela’s political elite through drugs.
But the manner of arrest could taint the prosecution. Defense attorneys will argue Maduro was kidnapped in violation of international law. They’ll claim the arrest violated due process because it involved military invasion of a sovereign nation without legal authority.
Courts have historically given wide latitude to how defendants reach U.S. jurisdiction—the “ker-frishbie doctrine” holds that illegal abduction doesn’t bar prosecution. But that doctrine has never been tested with a case involving the military invasion of a country and capture of its sitting head of state.
Federal judges in Manhattan will face questions no court has confronted: Does invading a country to arrest its president violate constitutional or international law in ways that bar prosecution? Can U.S. courts exercise jurisdiction over someone brought here through military force?
The legal issues could take years to resolve. Meanwhile, Maduro sits in MDC Brooklyn, his government calls him the legitimate president, and the U.S. announces plans to administer his country.
What “Temporary” Administration Means
Trump provided no details about how the U.S. would “run” Venezuela or what “temporary” means. Hegseth said Trump “sets the terms.” No timeline exists. No legal framework was cited. No congressional authorization was mentioned.
The practical questions multiply immediately. Who governs Venezuela day-to-day? Do U.S. officials make decisions about Venezuelan domestic policy? Does Venezuela’s existing government continue functioning under U.S. supervision? How does oil revenue get distributed? Who controls Venezuela’s military?
The Constitution has no provisions for temporarily administering foreign countries. Congress hasn’t authorized it. International law prohibits occupying powers from permanent sovereignty over occupied territory—but the line between “temporary administration” and occupation is thin.
Previous U.S. military occupations—Japan after World War II, Iraq after 2003—operated under different legal frameworks. Japan had unconditionally surrendered after total war. Iraq involved congressional authorization and coalition forces. Neither provides precedent for unilateral presidential action to invade, capture leadership, and announce temporary U.S. administration.
The Oil Motive Problem
Trump’s statement that the U.S. would “get the oil flowing” and Hegseth’s comment about gaining “additional wealth and resources” create legal problems.
Wars for economic gain violate international law. The U.N. Charter prohibits use of force except in self-defense or with Security Council authorization. Invading countries to seize resources clearly violates that prohibition.
Domestically, the Constitution doesn’t authorize the president to start wars for economic advantage. The Framers explicitly rejected giving the executive unlimited war powers. They witnessed European monarchs starting wars for territorial expansion and resource acquisition—exactly what they designed the Constitution to prevent.
If the operation’s purpose is controlling Venezuelan oil, every legal justification collapses. Law enforcement doesn’t justify resource seizure. National security doesn’t cover economic opportunism. No constitutional provision or statute authorizes military action to access foreign oil.
Rodriguez’s Dilemma
Venezuela’s Supreme Court ordered Vice President Delcy Rodriguez to assume presidential powers. Trump said earlier he believed Rodriguez was “willing to do what we think is necessary to make Venezuela great again.”
Rodriguez called Maduro’s capture kidnapping and demanded his release. She called him “the only president of Venezuela.” That rhetoric doesn’t suggest cooperation with U.S. plans.
The contradiction reveals the operation’s core problem: the U.S. can remove Venezuela’s president by force, but it cannot easily install a compliant replacement. If Rodriguez refuses to cooperate, what happens? Does the U.S. remove her too? Does it install someone else? Does it govern directly?
Each option creates new constitutional and international law violations. The operation’s architects seem to have planned the capture without gaming out the governance aftermath.
What the Framers Would Think
The Framers feared executive war-making above almost all other tyrannical powers. They’d watched European monarchs drag nations into wars for personal ambition and economic gain.
They gave war powers to Congress specifically to prevent presidents from unilaterally starting wars.
James Madison wrote that the Constitution’s allocation of war powers to the legislature was designed to ensure “the executive branch would not have the power to take the country to war.”
Saturday’s operation is precisely what the Framers designed the Constitution to prevent: unilateral executive military action against a sovereign nation for economic and political purposes, announced without congressional consultation or authorization.
The Framers would recognize Saturday’s operation as exactly the kind of executive overreach they wrote Article I, Section 8 to prohibit. They’d be horrified that Congress isn’t asserting its powers to check it.
The Question That Determines Everything
The constitutional and legal analysis ultimately turns on one question: Was Saturday’s operation an act of war or a law enforcement action?
If it’s war, the president needed congressional authorization he didn’t get. If it’s law enforcement, the Justice Department needed legal authority to conduct military strikes on a foreign country it doesn’t have.
The administration will argue it’s law enforcement—executing a valid indictment. Critics will argue military invasion and announced plans to govern a country cannot be characterized as mere law enforcement.
No court has ruled because the scenario is unprecedented. Previous administrations seized drug cartel leaders through cooperation with host governments or limited operations with tacit consent. None involved bombing a capital’s military installations and announcing plans to run the country.
Where This Goes Next
The operation creates multiple constitutional crises simultaneously.
Congress faces a choice: assert war powers or concede them permanently. Courts face questions about jurisdiction, due process, and whether they can review the legality of military operations. International institutions face a precedent that threatens the entire post-World War II framework prohibiting wars of aggression.
Meanwhile, Maduro sits in Brooklyn, Rodriguez governs in Caracas, and nobody knows who actually controls Venezuela’s government, military, or oil.
The Constitution doesn’t provide clear answers because the Framers never imagined a scenario where a president would unilaterally invade a neighboring country, capture its leader, fly him to New York for prosecution, and announce plans to temporarily govern.
They designed a system where such actions required congressional authorization, political consensus, and institutional checks. Saturday’s operation suggests those constraints no longer bind the presidency—or that we’re about to discover whether they still exist.
The Precedent Nobody Wants
Whether you support removing Maduro or not, the method creates precedent every future president inherits.
If this operation stands unchallenged, presidents can unilaterally order military strikes on sovereign nations, capture foreign leaders, and announce temporary U.S. administration—all without congressional authorization, legal process, or institutional checks.
That power isn’t limited to Venezuela or Maduro. It applies to every country whose leader faces U.S. charges and cannot militarily resist. The precedent makes presidential war powers essentially unlimited.
The Constitution’s carefully designed separation of war powers collapses if Saturday’s operation becomes the new normal. Congress’s role as the branch that decides when America goes to war disappears entirely.
The question isn’t whether Maduro deserved to be removed—it’s whether a president can remove him this way, announce plans to govern his country, and do it all without congressional authorization or judicial review.
That’s the constitutional crisis of January 2026. Not whether the operation succeeded militarily, but whether it’s legal at all—and what it means if it is.
No surprise here! President Trump showing his true leadership. Finally, someone who doesn’t cowtow to the swamp rats in Congress. They been sitting around, accomplishing nothing while our enemies plot against us. Maduro was nothing but a criminal with a dictator’s cloak and a drug kingpin flooding our streets with cocaine. Trump did what needed to be done, cut through the red tape, and took action. Liberals cry about "constitutional this" and "law that," but Trump ain’t afraid to make big moves that need to happen! Bravo, Mr. President! America-first policies in action! Fake news can spin it all they want, we see the truth! MAGA!