Maduro Capture Prompts Congressional Debate Over Trump’s Military Authority

The successful capture of ousted Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in the early hours of Jan. 3 has sparked a debate in Congress over the legality of the executive branch’s use of military force, especially in the Western Hemisphere.

So far, most Republicans in Congress have expressed public support for “Operation Absolute Resolve,” which involved the targeted deployment of aircraft, ground forces, and naval vessels in Venezuela to capture and extradite the dictator to the U.S.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who has long advocated for military action against America’s foreign adversaries, applauded the action Saturday on X, and also called for America to “help the Venezuelan people create a new future full of peace and prosperity.”

Graham added in a separate post, “I believe the liberation of Cuba from communist, America-hating, narcoterrorist dictators is near.”

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, initially expressed concerns about the operation on X on Saturday, stating he wanted to know “what, if anything, might constitutionally justify this action in the absence of a declaration of war or authorization for the use of military force.”

However, later that day on X, Lee added that he spoke with Secretary of State Marco Rubio who explained the use of force was to “protect and defend those executing an arrest warrant.” Lee stated that “this action likely falls within the president’s inherent authority under Article II of the Constitution to protect U.S. personnel from an actual or imminent attack.”

Republican leadership in both the House and the Senate also cheered on the administration’s actions in Venezuela, albeit without explicit calls for a wider pressure campaign in the region.

“Trump’s decisive action to disrupt the unacceptable status quo and apprehend Maduro, through the execution of a valid Department of Justice warrant, is an important first step to bring him to justice for the drug crimes for which he has been indicted in the United States,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said in a Saturday statement. He added that he looked forward to further briefings on the matter.

House Speaker Mike Johnson called it “a decisive and justified operation that will protect American lives,” in a statement released Saturday morning.

But there is also a camp of Republicans who, although in support of the surgical action taken against the Maduro regime, oppose long-term nation building or foreign conflict without congressional approval.

“If neoconservatives planned a mission in Venezuela it would look like Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Instead, laser focused precision… so far,” Rep. Warren Davidson, R-Ohio, a former Army Ranger, wrote on X on Saturday. “Nevertheless, neocons will work to reclaim their grip on the war machine and Democrats will work to preserve the warmth of collectivism.”

Rep. Keith Self, R-Texas, responded, “well said,” to Davidson’s post. Both members serve on the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Some Republicans also expressed their opposition to further use of military force without congressional approval.

“Now that Maduro has been captured, the president needs to work with Congress to obtain proper authorization for the continued use of military intervention in Venezuela, a power specifically reserved for Congress,” wrote Rep. Tom Barrett, R-Mich., an Iraq War veteran who represents a highly contested district.

The Coming Congressional Battle

In the coming days, Democrats signaled they will challenge the legal basis of the administration’s foreign military operations.

Maduro’s capture “was a military action, and pursuant to the Constitution, only Congress has the power to declare war,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., said in on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday. 

“And we’ve got to make sure when we return to Washington, D.C., that legislative action is taken to ensure that no further military steps occur absent explicit congressional approval,” Jeffries added.

Both Jeffries and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., are demanding “an immediate Gang of Eight briefing,” wherein the administration would brief both parties’ congressional leadership and the bipartisan leadership in both chambers’ intelligence committees.

To be clear, some Democrats in Congress have supported the administration’s actions in Venezuela.

Rep. Josh Gottheimer, D-N.J., who sits on the House Intelligence Committee, released a positive statement on the attack, which he said “deals a significant blow to China, Iran, and Cuba, all of which relied on Maduro as a regional ally.”

Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., similarly expressed his gratitude for “our U.S. military personnel that handled these orders in Venezuela with precision,” in a Saturday statement.

Per Attorney General Pam Bondi, Maduro will stand trial on federal drug and gun charges, including “Possession of Machineguns.”

However, President Donald Trump made it abundantly clear Saturday that the operation was not just an extradition but also serves the interests of American industry and statecraft, as he previewed further intervention in Venezuela.

“We’ll run [Venezuela] properly. We’ll run it professionally,” Trump said at the press conference on the capture, in which Venezuela’s oil resources were a central topic of discussion. “We’ll have the greatest oil companies in the world going in and invest billions and billions of dollars and take out money, use that money in Venezuela, and the biggest beneficiary is going to be the people of Venezuela.”

Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., who has been involved in several congressional efforts to restrain Trump’s war powers, has already slammed the administration’s legal justification for the operation.

“If this action were constitutionally sound, the Attorney General wouldn’t be tweeting that they’ve arrested the President of a sovereign country and his wife for possessing guns in violation of a 1934 U.S. firearm law,” he wrote on X on Saturday.

Article I grants Congress the authority “To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.”

But according to the administration, there is no war against the state of Venezuela.

“There’s not a war,” Secretary Rubio said on NBC’s Meet the Press on Saturday. “We are at war against drug trafficking organizations, not a war against Venezuela.”

“We are enforcing American laws with regards to oil sanctions. We have sanctioned entities. We go to court. We get a warrant. We seize those boats with oil. And that will continue,” he added.

“And we will continue to reserve the right to take strikes against drug boats that are bringing drugs towards the United States that are being operated by transnational criminal organizations including the Cartel de los Soles.”

Rubio described Maduro as “the leader of that cartel” who is “now in U.S. custody and facing U.S. justice in the Southern District of New York.”

There will also likely be discussion, among both Republicans and Democrats, about the nature of coordination between Congress and the White House on military operations.

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, has already criticized the administration for not informing Congress earlier.

“Congress should have been informed about the operation earlier and needs to be involved as this situation evolves,” Collins wrote Saturday on X.

Rubio explained the lack of prior notice at a Saturday press conference, saying, “This is not the kind of mission you can pre-notify.” Trump said that Congress’ “tendency to leak” information contributed to the decision not to give advance notice.

Sen. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., wrote on X Saturday that he is “going to force a vote” on his War Powers Resolution to rein in the administration’s use of military force in Venezuela.

The post Maduro Capture Prompts Congressional Debate Over Trump’s Military Authority appeared first on The Daily Signal.