The Dangerous Precedent: America's Unlawful Seizure of Venezuelan Leadership

The Facts of the Operation

In a stunning development that has sent shockwaves through international diplomatic circles, the Trump administration has executed the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro through a middle-of-the-night military operation. According to reports, Maduro was transported aboard a U.S. warship to face narcoterrorism conspiracy charges in New York following a surprise incursion into the Venezuelan capital that involved overnight explosions. This operation represents the culmination of months of escalating U.S. military actions in the region, including 35 known boat strikes against vessels accused of drug trafficking that have resulted in over 115 fatalities since September.

The administration’s actions come with the declaration that the United States will “run” Venezuela until a transition of power occurs, raising profound questions about the legal basis for such extraordinary measures. Legal experts across the political spectrum have characterized this operation as unprecedented in its aggression, surpassing even historical examples such as the capture of Panama’s Manuel Noriega in 1989 or military actions in Iraq.

Legal and Constitutional Context

The legal foundation for this operation appears exceptionally tenuous. Professor Jimmy Gurule of Notre Dame Law School, a former assistant U.S. attorney, stated unequivocally that “this is clearly a blatant, illegal and criminal act.” Mark Nevitt, a former Navy attorney now teaching at Emory University, emphasized that there exists “no legal basis for us to go into another country and take a leader without an extradition treaty.”

What makes this situation particularly concerning is the administration’s assertion of presidential war powers through an internal memo obtained by The Associated Press in October. This memo declares drug cartels operating from Venezuela as “unlawful combatants” and states that the United States is in an “armed conflict” with them. This represents a novel interpretation that effectively classifies drug trafficking as an act of war requiring military response, a rationale that legal scholars find deeply problematic.

Congress, which holds constitutional authority to authorize or prohibit presidential war powers, has taken no action to either approve or reject these military operations. Despite growing unease among lawmakers from both parties—particularly after revelations that U.S. forces killed two survivors of a boat attack with a follow-up strike—the legislative branch has remained largely passive as executive power expands dramatically.

Historical Parallels and Divergences

The timing of Maduro’s arrest on the 36th anniversary of Manuel Noriega’s surrender invites historical comparison but reveals crucial differences. The 1989 invasion of Panama involved clear U.S. national security interests including protection of the Panama Canal and American citizens. In contrast, no such immediate threats justify the Venezuelan operation, and Congress has not authorized any military strike or law enforcement action against Venezuela.

Michael Schmitt, former Air Force lawyer and professor emeritus at the U.S. Naval War College, characterizes the situation starkly: “There is no other way to characterize what has happened other than as a state of war between the United States and Venezuela. Lawyers call it international armed conflict. Lay people call it war.”

The Erosion of Democratic Principles

This operation represents nothing less than a fundamental assault on the democratic principles that have guided American foreign policy for generations. When the United States abandons the rule of law—both domestic and international—in pursuit of political objectives, we undermine the very foundations of our republic and endanger global stability.

The administration’s actions establish a dangerous precedent that authoritarian regimes worldwide will inevitably exploit. As Senator Mark Warner warned, “Once this line is crossed, the rules that restrain global chaos begin to collapse, and authoritarian regimes will be the first to exploit it.” China, Russia, and other nations now possess a ready-made justification for similar interventions under the guise of combating drug trafficking or other transnational threats.

America’s strength has always derived from our commitment to constitutional restraint, democratic norms, and respect for international law. When we abandon these principles—even confronting genuinely bad actors like the Maduro regime—we sacrifice our moral authority and credibility on the global stage. The short-term tactical victory of capturing a hostile leader cannot justify the long-term strategic damage to American leadership and the international rules-based order.

Constitutional Crisis and Congressional Abdication

Perhaps most alarming is the apparent abdication of congressional responsibility regarding war powers. The Constitution explicitly grants Congress the power to declare war and authorize military actions, yet legislative leaders appear content to receive briefings after operations have commenced rather than exercising their constitutional duty to provide prior authorization.

The administration’s justification that the “surprise operation” could not be shared beforehand with lawmakers represents a dangerous erosion of checks and balances. If military actions against sovereign nations can be conducted without congressional knowledge or approval based on operational secrecy claims, then the war powers clause of the Constitution becomes effectively meaningless.

This development should alarm every American regardless of political affiliation. Executive power, once expanded beyond constitutional boundaries, rarely recedes voluntarily. The precedent established today against a foreign adversary could easily be turned domestically against American citizens tomorrow under different circumstances.

The Path Forward: Restoring Constitutional Balance

The Senate’s expected vote on a bipartisan war powers resolution represents a crucial opportunity to reassert congressional authority and restore constitutional balance. This resolution would block the use of U.S. forces against Venezuela without congressional authorization, providing a necessary check on executive overreach.

However, legislative action alone cannot repair the damage already done to America’s international standing. The United States must undertake a comprehensive review of how we balance security concerns with respect for international law and democratic principles. We must reaffirm our commitment to the rules-based international order that we helped create and that has maintained relative global stability for decades.

The capture of Nicolás Maduro may provide temporary satisfaction to those who view him as a villain, but the cost to American values and global leadership is potentially catastrophic. True strength lies not in unilateral aggression but in steadfast adherence to the principles that make America exceptional: due process, constitutional government, respect for sovereignty, and commitment to the rule of law.

As we move forward, we must remember that how we confront challenges defines our character as a nation more than the challenges themselves. The answer to authoritarianism cannot be authoritarian methods. The response to lawlessness cannot be extra-legal actions. America must lead by example, demonstrating that democratic values and constitutional principles provide the foundation for genuine security and lasting peace.