On November 2nd, White House chief of staff Susie Wiles stated in an interview with Vanity Fair that potential ground strikes in Venezuela would require approval from Congress. „If Donald Trump ‘were to authorize a ground action, then it would be war, and for that, Congress would be needed,” she said.
A few days later, Trump administration officials privately conveyed a similar message to members of Congress: there was no legal basis for attacks on ground targets in Venezuela.
Just two months later, the Trump administration did exactly what it had previously claimed it could not do, writes CNN.
The United States launched what Donald Trump called a "broad attack on Venezuela" and captured the country's president, Nicolás Maduro, to bring him to justice. The regime change operation was initiated without Congress approval.
- US attacks Venezuela and captures Maduro and his wife. Delta Force took them from bed while they were sleeping. First image of arrested Maduro
- How the US attack on Venezuela was planned and executed
(Trump had stated back in November that he would not need authorization from Congress for a ground action, but this opinion did not seem to be universally accepted within the administration.)
Strikes on another state's territory without Congress approval
For now, the mission seems limited to removing Maduro from power. However, it involved military strikes on Venezuelan territory – exactly the situation that administration members had previously claimed would require a legal authorization they did not have.
CNN reported back in early November that the administration was seeking a new legal opinion from the Department of Justice for such actions.
Moreover, at the press conference on Saturday, Trump not only spoke about Maduro's arrest but also about administering Venezuela and taking over its oil industry – statements that suggest the operation could go far beyond a simple arrest.
Strikes with questionable legal basis within other states – even when limited to removing a foreign leader – are not new in recent US history. But even in this context, this case is exceptional, CNN emphasizes.
Changing justifications and lack of coherence
The main reason is the lack of a coherent legal justification. The Trump administration has not presented a clear legal framework for the attack and does not seem to have notified Congress beforehand – which is usually the minimum requirement in such situations, CNN further writes.
A comprehensive explanation has not been published yet, and the initial signals are confusing. Republican Senator Mike Lee stated that Secretary of State Marco Rubio told him the attack was necessary to "protect and defend" the individuals executing the arrest warrant against Maduro.
"This action likely falls within the president's inherent constitutional authority under Article II to protect American personnel from a real or imminent attack," said Lee – even though he is known as a critic of unauthorized foreign military actions.
Hours later, Vice President JD Vance echoed the same argument. "For those who say the action was illegal: Maduro has multiple charges in the United States for narco-terrorism," Vance wrote on X. "You can't evade justice for drug trafficking just because you live in a palace in Caracas."
Subsequently, Marco Rubio reiterated that the military was supporting a "law enforcement function."
A dangerous precedent
However, CNN notes that there are numerous individuals indicted in the US living in other countries, and the United States does not normally launch military attacks to bring them to justice. Furthermore, the administration had not previously indicated that military force could be legally used for such a purpose.
Over time, justifications have shifted:
- initially, Trump threatened ground strikes to combat drug trafficking;
- later, the administration claimed that Venezuela had sent "dangerous people" to the US;
- and after downplaying the role of oil, Trump now stated he wants to recover "the oil, the land, and other assets they've stolen from us."
The confusion was so great that even Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, known for his tough foreign policy stances, called for "clarity" from the administration in December.
The Panama precedent and a controversial memorandum
The administration seems to be comparing the Venezuela case not with Iraq but with Panama in 1989 when the US removed Manuel Noriega – a leader who was also indicted in the US for drug trafficking.
A memorandum drafted in 1989 by William P. Barr, then an official in the Department of Justice, argued that the president has an "inherent constitutional authority" to order the capture of individuals abroad, even if it violates international law. The document was used to justify the operation in Panama but remains highly controversial.
In the case of Venezuela, the stakes are much higher: it is a larger country with significant oil resources, and international reactions are already emerging. China has labeled the attack as "a blatant abuse of force against a sovereign state."
A new testing of presidential power limits
During the press conference and in an interview with Fox News, Trump left open the possibility of other military options, suggesting that the operation is not limited to Maduro's arrest.
It is another episode in which Trump is testing the limits of his constitutional authority – and the American public's tolerance for this practice.
However, this time, the stage is one of the largest possible, and the legal and political implications are far from over, concludes CNN.