WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration’s capture of Venezuela President Nicolás Maduro and its claim that it will “run” the country are raising new questions about the legality of U.S. actions and potential future operations in Venezuela, legal experts said.
Maduro was seized in what the report described as a middle-of-the-night operation. He was transported with his wife on a U.S. warship to face narco-terrorism conspiracy charges in New York after a surprise incursion that included overnight explosions in Caracas, the article said.
“This is clearly a blatant, illegal and criminal act,” said Jimmy Gurule, a Notre Dame Law School professor and former assistant U.S. attorney. John Yoo, an early architect of the George W. Bush administration’s Iraq policy and now a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, said the bigger debate than legality is yet to come.
The development caps months of aggressive U.S. military action in the region described by AP, including bombing boats accused of trafficking drugs and seizures of oil tankers off the coast of Venezuela. The article said the administration conducted 35 known boat strikes against vessels, killing more than 115 people since September, and positioned an armada of warships in nearby waters.
AP reported that the administration’s actions also have a congressional authorization problem: “Congress has not authorized any American military strike or law enforcement move against Venezuela.” Matthew Waxman, a Columbia University law professor and former national security official in the Bush administration, said the president is likely to claim the actions fit a “vast body of precedent” supporting broad executive power. Waxman said critics will argue the move exceeds presidential power without congressional authorization.
Gurule said courts give deference to the president on national security, but that deference does not mean “absolute deference and unfettered authority to do anything.” AP also cited past examples in which U.S. agents abducted suspects abroad without authorization, including a 1990 case involving bounty hunters working under the DEA.
The legal debate also extends to the administration’s description of the threat it says it is combating. AP reported that an administration memo obtained in October said the drug cartels operating from Venezuela were deemed unlawful combatants and that the United States is now in an “armed conflict” with them. The article said the memo appears to represent an extraordinary assertion of presidential war powers by effectively treating drug trafficking into the United States as armed conflict requiring military force, a new rationale for past and future actions.
AP said the timing has further political resonance. Maduro’s arrest came 36 years to the date of the surrender of Panama’s strongman Manuel Noriega, after the U.S. invaded Panama in 1989 to arrest Noriega on drug trafficking charges. The article said that in Panama, U.S. national security interests were directly at stake, including the Panama Canal and the safety of American citizens and U.S. military installations.
Congressional reaction began immediately. Democratic leaders Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries demanded immediate briefings for the “gang of eight” leaders and other lawmakers, AP reported, saying congressional leaders were not notified until after the operation was underway. Schumer said: “The idea that Trump plans to now run Venezuela should strike fear in the hearts of all Americans,” and added, “The American people have seen this before and paid the devastating price.”
In addition, a former Air Force lawyer and professor emeritus at the U.S. Naval War College, Michael Schmitt, said the operation violates international law. “Lawyers call it international armed conflict,” Schmitt said, adding: “Lay people call it war.” He said the use of hostilities between two states triggers an internal armed conflict, leading him to conclude, “So as a matter of law, we are now at war with Venezuela.”
House Speaker Mike Johnson said the administration is working to schedule briefings for lawmakers next week. Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, warned about precedent, asking: “Beyond the legality, what kind of precedent does it send?” Warner said the rebuilding plan ahead has echoes of the Iraq War, as the Trump administration has promised to use Venezuela’s oil revenue to pay the costs.
Waxman said seizing control of Venezuela’s resources opens additional legal issues, including “a big issue will be who really owns Venezuela’s oil?” The Senate is expected to try again next week to curtail Trump’s actions, with AP reporting a bipartisan war powers resolution vote expected that would block using U.S. forces against Venezuela unless authorized by Congress.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune said he is grateful for the armed forces “who carried out this necessary action,” and he said he spoke with Secretary of State Marco Rubio and wants more information. Thune said: “I look forward to receiving further briefings from the administration on this operation as part of its comprehensive counternarcotics strategy when the Senate returns to Washington next week,” according to the article. Rubio told lawmakers at a briefing Saturday that because of the nature of the surprise operation, it was not something that could be shared beforehand, AP reported.
Goodman reported from Miami.