The capture of a sitting foreign head of state by United States forces represents an extraordinary escalation of American action overseas that raises profound questions about international law, constitutional authority, and the scope of presidential power. US President Donald Trump confirmed on Saturday that US troops had carried out what he described as a “major strike” inside Venezuela, leading to the arrest of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, who are now facing terrorism and narcotics-related charges in New York.
Read also | Live updates from Venezuela: ‘President Trump will set the terms’ for what comes next
The US operation, carried out without prior approval from Congress, has drawn intense scrutiny from legal scholars, lawmakers and foreign governments, many of whom question whether the action can be brought into compliance with US constitutional law or international legal norms.
Operation without congressional approval
Under the U.S. Constitution, Congress has the power to declare war, while the president serves as commander-in-chief of the armed forces. Successive administrations have interpreted this division expansively, but even within this tradition, the Venezuelan operation appears exceptional.
Back in November, senior Trump administration officials acknowledged that military strikes on Venezuelan territory would require congressional approval.
On Nov. 2, White House chief of staff Susie Wiles told Vanity Fair that if Donald Trump “should authorize any activity on land, then that’s war, then (we need) Congress.”
Read also | ‘Captured’ Venezuelan President Maduro, wife arrives in NY, soon to be jailed
Administration officials subsequently shared similar assessments with members of Congress in private briefings, saying there was no clear legal basis for ground military action against Venezuela.
Despite these assessments, U.S. forces went ahead with an operation involving strikes on Venezuelan territory and the forcible removal of its president — without prior notification or authorization from Congress.
Competing legal grounds emerge
In the absence of a formal legal memo from the White House or the Justice Department, senior officials offered overlapping — and sometimes conflicting — explanations.
Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah said Secretary of State Marco Rubio told him the action was necessary to “protect and defend those who are executing the arrest warrant” against Maduro.
“This action arguably falls within the president’s own authority under Article II of the Constitution to protect American personnel from actual or imminent attack,” Lee said.
Read also | Trump vs Maduro: Are US strikes over drug cartels or Venezuela’s oil wealth?
Vice President JD Vance reinforced this interpretation in a post on X, writing: “And a PSA to anyone who said it was ‘illegal’: Maduro has multiple narco-terrorism charges in the United States. You can’t avoid justice for drug trafficking in the United States because you live in a palace in Caracas.”
At a later press conference, Rubio characterized the military operation as supporting a “law enforcement function.”
However, legal experts note that this rationale would represent a significant departure from established practice. The US has historically relied on extradition, diplomacy or covert intelligence operations – not overt military force – to arrest foreign nationals indicted in US courts.
Complicating the narrative are Trump’s own remarks
President Trump’s public statements further blurred the legal justification for the operation. While officials initially focused the mission narrowly on arresting Maduro, Trump has repeatedly talked about broader goals, including governance and resource control.
“We’re going to rebuild the oil infrastructure,” Trump said, later adding, “We’re going to run the country right.”
He also stated that the US would get back “the oil, land, and other assets that they previously stole from us.”
Such remarks bolstered arguments that the operation may amount to an act of regime change rather than limited coercive action – a distinction with significant legal implications under both domestic and international law.
Precedent: Panama, not Iraq
While comparisons have been made to the 2003 Iraq War, legal scholars say the more relevant precedent is the 1989 US intervention in Panama, which resulted in the capture of Panamanian leader Manuel Noriega.
Read also | “Venezuelan Maduro captured by US Delta Force,” Ghost Operators back in action?
Like Maduro, Noriega has been accused of drug trafficking in the US. His appeal was based on a controversial 1989 Office of Legal Counsel memorandum authored by William P Barr, which argued that the president had “inherent constitutional authority” to order the arrest of foreign nationals abroad – even when such actions violate international law.
This interpretation has never been definitively tested in court and remains deeply contested. Critics argue that it gives the executive branch almost unlimited power to deploy military force for law enforcement purposes around the world.
International law and sovereign immunity
Under international law, the forcible removal of a sitting head of state from their own territory by a foreign power is widely regarded as a violation of sovereignty and the prohibition on the use of force enshrined in the UN Charter.
The principle of sovereign immunity generally protects sitting heads of state from arrest by foreign jurisdictions, except in narrowly defined circumstances such as the mandates of international tribunals.
Read also | Trump Attacks Venezuela, His Old Threats to Maduro Explode Online
China has already condemned the operation as a “flagrant use of force against a sovereign state” and other governments are expected to raise the issue in multilateral forums.
Strategic stakes in Venezuela
The geopolitical importance of Venezuela further complicates the situation. The country holds approximately 303 billion barrels of proven oil reserves – the largest in the world – accounting for nearly 20 percent of global reserves.
Read also | Trump says Maduro, wife captured, flown out as US attacks Venezuela
Analysts warn that Maduro’s removal could spark internal instability, invite outside intervention or turn Venezuela into a hotbed of great-power competition, notably involving China and Russia.
The defining test of the US president’s authority
In essence, the Venezuelan operation represents a critical test of the outer limits of US presidential power. By authorizing military action on foreign soil to capture a sitting president — without congressional approval and under shifting legal justification — Trump has put the scope of Article II powers under unprecedented pressure.
