WASHINGTON — The Trump administration seized Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in an overnight military operation Friday, transporting him and his wife aboard a U.S. warship to New York to face narco-terrorism conspiracy charges, the Associated Press reported. A surprise U.S. incursion rocked the Venezuelan capital with explosions before dawn, and the administration declared it would “run” the South American country — raising sharp legal questions about the scope of executive war powers and the absence of congressional authorization for what some legal scholars said now constitutes an undeclared war.

“This is clearly a blatant, illegal and criminal act,” said Jimmy Gurule, a Notre Dame Law School professor and former assistant U.S. attorney.

Congress had not authorized any military action against Venezuela, and lawmakers from both parties pressed for briefings Saturday as the Senate prepared a bipartisan war powers resolution that would block further U.S. military operations in the country unless Congress approves them.

Beyond historical precedent

Legal experts said the operation exceeded even the most aggressive historical examples of American intervention in the Western Hemisphere, including the 1989 U.S. invasion of Panama to arrest strongman Manuel Noriega on drug trafficking charges.

That operation had a defined national-security rationale — protecting the Panama Canal, American citizens, and U.S. military installations in the country. No comparable statutory justification exists for the Venezuela operation, experts said, and Congress had not enacted any authorization for military force against Venezuela.

Maduro’s arrest came 36 years to the date of Noriega’s surrender on Jan. 3, 1990.

Matthew Waxman, a Columbia University law professor who served as a national security official in the Bush administration, outlined the competing legal arguments. “The President will claim that this fits within a vast body of precedent supporting broad executive power to defend the United States, its citizens, and its interests,” he said. “Critics will charge that this exceeds the bounds of presidential power without congressional authorization.”

The Trump administration declared drug cartels operating from Venezuela to be unlawful combatants and stated that the United States is in an “armed conflict” with them, according to a memo the Associated Press obtained in October. The memo asserted that drug trafficking into the United States constitutes armed conflict requiring the use of military force — a new rationale for past and future actions.

The administration had conducted 35 known boat strikes against vessels accused of drug trafficking since September, killing more than 115 people, the AP reported. Those strikes included a follow-up attack that killed two survivors of a prior boat strike, drawing criticism from lawmakers in both parties.

Michael Schmitt, a former Air Force lawyer and professor emeritus at the U.S. Naval War College, said the entire operation violates international law. “Lawyers call it international armed conflict,” Schmitt said. “Lay people call it war. So as a matter of law, we are now at war with Venezuela because the use of hostilities between two states clearly triggers an international armed conflict.”

Gurule said courts generally defer to the executive on national security. “Courts give great deference to the president on issues related to national security,” he said. “But great deference does not mean absolute deference and unfettered authority to do anything.”

Congressional reaction

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer of New York and House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York demanded immediate briefings for the “gang of eight” congressional leaders and other lawmakers. Congressional leaders were not notified of the operation until it was already underway.

“The idea that Trump plans to now run Venezuela should strike fear in the hearts of all Americans,” Schumer said. “The American people have seen this before and paid the devastating price.”

Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, raised questions about the international precedent the operation sets. “Beyond the legality, what kind of precedent does it send?” he said in an interview, adding that the administration’s plan to use Venezuela’s oil revenue to cover rebuilding costs carries echoes of the Iraq War.

Waxman said the claim to Venezuela’s resources opens additional legal issues. “For example, a big issue will be who really owns Venezuela’s oil?” he said.

Republican lawmakers largely welcomed the capture. Senate Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota called it a “necessary action” and said he spoke to Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

“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,” Thune said.

House Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana said the administration “is working to schedule briefings” for lawmakers next week. Rubio, at a Saturday briefing with Trump, said the surprise nature of the operation meant it could not be shared beforehand with lawmakers.

The transition question ahead

John Yoo, an early architect of the George W. Bush administration’s policy in Iraq and now a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, said the more consequential challenge lies ahead. “It’s easier to remove a dictator,” he said. Ensuring the transition to a stable democratic government is “the harder part,” he added, drawing on his experience from the Iraq War.

The Senate is expected to vote next week on a bipartisan war powers resolution that would block the use of U.S. forces against Venezuela unless authorized by Congress, the AP reported.