Venezuela Strikes Ignite Legal Firestorm

In a dramatic escalation of US-Venezuelan tensions, military strikes inside Venezuela have ignited not only explosions in Caracas but also fierce debate in Washington about whether the White House acted outside constitutional bounds.

Trump announced early today that United States forces had carried out what he described as ‘large-scale strikes’ against Venezuelan targets and had captured President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores. Trump said the couple would be flown out of the country to face criminal charges, including ‘narco-terrorism’ offences, echoing a 2020 US indictment. The White House, however, offered no publicly disclosed documentation of congressional authorisation for these operations.

Strikes, Capture and a Constitutional Crisis

At around 02:00 (VET), multiple explosions were heard across Caracas and surrounding military installations as air operations unfolded, according to Associated Press reporting. Venezuelan forces reported power outages and smoke rising above key bases, while pro-government supporters crowded streets in shock. The Venezuelan government denounced the actions as an ‘imperialist attack’ and declared a national state of emergency.

Trump’s social media announcement stated Maduro was captured ‘in conjunction with US law enforcement’ and would be brought to stand trial in US courts. The US attorney general publicly confirmed that both Maduro and Flores would face criminal charges, adding this capture stemmed from an earlier federal indictment.

Legal experts and lawmakers were swift to criticise the absence of congressional authorisation for such military action. Under the US Constitution’s War Powers Clause, only Congress has the authority to declare war or authorise sustained military force, except in very narrow self-defence scenarios. In the absence of explicit congressional approval, presidents routinely cite inherent Article II powers for limited use of force; but the acts in Venezuela go far beyond routine, raising legal alarms.

Over recent months, the Trump administration has carried out repeated strikes against vessels it alleged were connected with drug trafficking in waters near Venezuela. It also authorised the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to conduct covert operations in the region, an unusual move that some analysts say could be aimed at minimising congressional oversight.

Legislators from both parties have repeatedly pressed the administration for transparency and legal justification. A War Powers Resolution designed to limit the president’s authority to conduct hostilities without congressional approval was narrowly defeated in the Senate in October 2025, underscoring the ongoing contention in Capitol Hill over executive power.

Even within the president’s own party, scepticism has emerged. Republican Senator Mike Lee said in comments relayed by media that Secretary of State Marco Rubio had briefed him suggesting the strike could be justified under Article II authority, but that members were awaiting formal legal explanations.

Constitutional Scholars and International Law Concerns

It’s important to note that while presidents have some latitude to use force in defence of US personnel or territory, sustained offensive strikes and capture of a foreign head of state ordinarily require express congressional authorisation — or a United Nations Security Council mandate in international relations. Critics argue the drug-trafficking rationale previously offered by the White House for maritime strikes does not legally extend to full-scale operations on Venezuelan soil.

The administration’s framing of the earlier maritime campaign as a ‘non-international armed conflict’ with drug cartels was challenged in Congressional Research Service assessments, which highlighted that such an approach, absent clear statutory authority, blurs the distinction between law enforcement and war.

Human rights groups have also weighed in. Organisations like Human Rights Watch have previously described lethal attacks on suspected drug vessels as unlawful ‘extrajudicial killings’ that violate both US and international human rights law. Although those strikes occurred in international waters, their legality was widely contested.

The Maduro Regime, US Policy and the Path Ahead

For decades, US-Venezuela relations have been fraught. Tensions deepened sharply after Hugo Chávez nationalised oil and aligned with geopolitical rivals of Washington. Under Maduro, the crisis worsened economically and politically, prompting tough sanctions and repeated US accusations — including labelling Venezuela a hub of narcotics trafficking benefiting organised crime.

Analysts say the early-morning strikes and reported capture of Maduro risk destabilising the region, potentially triggering refugee flows, economic disruption and broader conflict dynamics. Latin American nations have called for diplomatic conflict de-escalation, and debates are mounting in international forums, including the UN, about the legitimacy and consequences of unilateral military action by one state against another.

As of this writing, Congress has not passed authorisation for military force related to these operations, and the administration has not publicly released legal memoranda justifying its actions under US law. With the president’s next scheduled briefing expected later today, lawmakers and global leaders alike are bracing for intensified scrutiny.

The world watches as the legality of the strikes and the future of Venezuelan sovereignty hang in the balance.

Originally published on IBTimes UK