Last updated 4 weeks ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.
President Trump sent Delta Force soldiers to arrest Venezuela’s leader over the weekend without telling Congress first. Most lawmakers learned about it the same way you did—from their phones.
The operation itself—Delta Force soldiers and FBI agents descending on Caracas at 2:00 AM to arrest President Nicolás Maduro and his wife—raises questions about international law and strategic planning. The constitutional problem is simpler: the president sent soldiers to arrest a foreign leader, and lawmakers found out days after, once the operation was underway and lawmakers were reading about it in news alerts.
The Constitution gives Congress—not the president—the power to declare war. The 1973 War Powers Resolution, passed over Richard Nixon’s veto after Vietnam, requires presidents to notify Congress within 48 hours of sending troops into combat and limits unauthorized military action to 60 days (with a 30-day withdrawal period). Presidents have long disputed the resolution’s constitutionality and the scope of situations to which it applies. The Trump administration did neither of those things in advance, and their after-the-fact explanation amounts to: we didn’t tell you because we thought you’d leak it.
The president told Congress that it can’t be trusted with information about military operations that Congress is constitutionally required to authorize.
How Presidents Have Avoided the War Powers Resolution
Presidents have been finding ways to avoid following the War Powers Resolution for fifty years. The usual move is to file a report describing military action as “consistent with” the resolution rather than “required by” it—a word game that lets presidents avoid admitting the law constrains them.
The Trump administration used that language when they finally did notify lawmakers. Previous operations that avoided telling Congress were typically small: drone strikes, special operations raids, limited airstrikes. This operation involved more than 150 aircraft, strikes on military bases and weapons sites in and around a capital city, and arresting a country’s leader.
The administration is now saying the United States will “run the country” of Venezuela until some undefined transition can occur—which is an ongoing military operation that needs lawmakers to approve under any reasonable reading of the Constitution.
Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia stated: “The Constitution is absolutely clear that the U.S. doesn’t engage in military action or war without a vote of Congress unless the country is under immediate attack.” There’s no evidence Venezuela posed an immediate threat to the United States. Trump’s legal justification cites drug trafficking charges against Maduro—which, however legitimate, don’t give the president the power to invade another country on his own.
Republican Support and Democratic Math
Kaine has promised to force a Senate vote this week on legislation blocking further military action in Venezuela without approval from lawmakers. He tried this in December, before the operation happened, when Trump was threatening Venezuela. That resolution got 49 votes—one short of passing. Only two Republicans, Rand Paul of Kentucky and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, supported it.
Now Kaine is betting that an actual military operation will move Republicans who dismissed his earlier warnings. Democrats need 50 votes if Vice President JD Vance breaks a tie. That means converting at least one more Republican from the previous vote, assuming every Democrat votes yes.
Republican leadership isn’t making this easier. Speaker Mike Johnson released a statement thanking Trump and saying he’d spoken with Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth “in the last several hours”—a timeline that confirms he wasn’t consulted before the operation. Senate Majority Leader John Thune called it a “justified operation” to apprehend someone indicted on drug charges, framing it as law enforcement rather than war.
If this is law enforcement, why did it require 150 aircraft and strikes on military bases and weapons sites? Why is the United States now saying it will administer Venezuela’s government? The administration’s description contradicts its own legal justification.
Republican Dissenters
Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky pointed out the administration’s excuse: “If this action were constitutionally sound, the Attorney General wouldn’t be tweeting that they’ve arrested the President of a sovereign country and his wife for possessing guns in violation of a 1934 U.S. firearm law.”
Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene called it removing the government and calling it a drug enforcement operation, saying Americans are “sick and tired” of military interventions that serve corporate interests. It’s a moment when Greene and progressive Democrats are making similar constitutional arguments.
Leadership has made clear they’re backing Trump, and most rank-and-file members are following along. The few Republicans willing to question the operation publicly aren’t enough to pass Kaine’s resolution unless several more join them—and quickly, before the party closes ranks completely.
Congressional Options
The War Powers Resolution lets lawmakers order troops to leave through a vote that the president can’t block. That’s the most direct path: pass a resolution in both chambers ordering forces out of Venezuela, and the president has to comply.
Lawmakers have never successfully used this mechanism to force a president to pull troops out. It would be a dramatic rejection of the president’s action, and it’s hard to imagine Republican leadership allowing it to come to a vote if they think it might pass.
The other option is controlling spending. Kaine has said he’s looking at defense spending bills as a way to prohibit funding for military action in Venezuela. This approach gives lawmakers power in budget discussions and doesn’t require winning a standalone vote on war powers that Republicans could easily defeat.
Lawmakers face a January 30 deadline to fund the government or trigger another shutdown. If Democrats want to restrict Venezuela operations, they could make it a condition of passing spending bills. Republicans would have to choose between funding the government and giving the president a blank check for Venezuela.
The safer political move is to complain loudly about constitutional violations while voting for spending bills that don’t restrict Venezuela operations. Democrats can say they opposed the operation while avoiding blame for shutting down the government.
Classified Briefings and Secret Legal Justifications
The White House scheduled classified briefings for Monday afternoon—first for the top leaders from both parties and intelligence committees, then for members of Armed Services and Foreign Affairs committees.
If the administration provides evidence that Americans were in immediate danger or convincing intelligence that justified the operation’s timing and secrecy, some wavering Republicans might feel comfortable defending Trump. If the briefings reveal this was primarily about removing the government with drug trafficking as a convenient excuse, pressure on Republicans to support restrictions might increase.
These are classified briefings. Whatever members learn, they can’t tell you about it. The administration has cited a classified Justice Department legal memo justifying the operation, but that memo remains secret. Lawmakers and the public can’t examine the legal reasoning because it’s classified.
Presidents gain authority by using secret legal memos that justify actions lawmakers and courts can’t review because the justifications themselves are classified. The administration can claim authority while refusing to explain why.
Representative Jim McGovern of Massachusetts demanded the administration declassify its legal arguments or provide them to lawmakers in unclassified form. If the operation is legally sound, why not explain the reasoning publicly? The fact that the administration won’t suggests their legal argument is weak.
What Happens Next in Venezuela
Trump announced the United States would “run the country” until a transition could be arranged. Rubio changed his statement, calling it a temporary takeover that would give the U.S. “tremendous leverage” over Venezuela’s future. Neither explanation says what America wants or when it will leave.
The closest example is the 1989 invasion of Panama to capture Manuel Noriega. That operation succeeded because Panama was small (3.5 million people), the U.S. had military bases already in the country, and there was already a government ready to take over. Venezuela is significantly larger by population (approximately 28 million vs. 3.5 million) and substantially larger geographically, with no U.S. military presence and no obvious successor acceptable to both Venezuelans and Washington.
Trump has indicated that Vice President Delcy Rodríguez would temporarily run the country, which doesn’t make sense because Rodríguez was part of Maduro’s government. Some Republican lawmakers in Florida prefer opposition leaders María Corina Machado or Edmundo González, who many nations recognize as the legitimate winner of Venezuela’s 2024 election. The administration apparently hasn’t decided who should lead.
Representative Jim Himes of Connecticut, ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, stated: “Maduro is a bad leader, but there’s no evidence he threatened America that would justify military action without Congressional Authorization, and no one has explained what happens after Maduro is removed and how we’ll keep Venezuela from falling apart.”
Iraq descended into chaos after the U.S. removed Saddam Hussein because the administration had no real plan for governance. Libya descended into chaos after NATO operations helped remove Muammar Gaddafi. Afghanistan descended into chaos after the U.S. withdrew. Removing a dictator is the easy part. Building a stable government afterward is hard, expensive, and often impossible in the long term.
International Law and Global Precedent
If a president can order large-scale military operations to remove a foreign leader alone, what stops a president from doing this to other countries? Trump’s excuse is based on drug trafficking charges, but that same logic could justify invading many other countries where the U.S. has charged the leader with crimes. Mexico’s drug cartels work with the government’s help—does that justify invasion? Russian oligarchs face sanctions and indictments—does that justify strikes on Moscow?
Senator Mark Warner of Virginia asked: “Does this mean any large country can indict the ruler of a smaller adjacent country and take that person out? This would lead to chaos, this legal argument.” If the United States can do this, so can China, Russia, or any other nation that wants to remove a neighboring government and has the military capacity to do it.
International law experts say the operation broke the UN’s rules against military force except in self-defense or with approval from the UN Security Council. Geoffrey Robertson, a prominent human rights attorney, stated that the operation was an illegal invasion under international law. The UN Secretary-General expressed concern about the precedent. China and Russia requested an emergency Security Council meeting.
The United States handed hostile powers a justification for their own military adventurism. When China eventually moves on Taiwan, or Russia absorbs more of Ukraine, they’ll cite this operation as precedent. American officials will say it’s not the same thing, but the basic idea is the same: a powerful country removing a weaker government it doesn’t like in a neighboring country, justified by domestic legal theories that the rest of the world rejects.
What Congress Will Likely Do
Lawmakers will likely hold some hearings, issue some strongly worded statements, and ultimately do nothing to constrain the president’s actions in Venezuela.
Kaine will demand a vote, and it will probably fail. A few Republicans might vote with Democrats, but not enough to pass it. Democrats will use the vote to show which Republicans support Trump, which they might use in campaign ads in 2026, but won’t prevent the military operation.
The budget process gives lawmakers more leverage, but Democratic leaders probably won’t risk shutting down the government over Venezuela. Voters blame the party that shuts down the government, and Democrats watched Republicans take control of both chambers. Starting a shutdown fight over whether lawmakers can declare war—an issue most voters don’t care about—seems like a losing political move.
Lawmakers will probably pass spending bills that don’t restrict Venezuela operations. Members will say they’re watching what happens and demanding answers while voting to pay for what they claim to oppose. This is how lawmakers have handled presidents grabbing authority for decades: complain loudly, do nothing real, watch presidents gain more authority.
The constitutional showdown will likely end not with a dramatic confrontation but with lawmakers backing down because the political costs of fighting are higher than the costs of acquiescing.
The next president, whoever that is, will remember that when they want to order military action somewhere alone, lawmakers will complain but ultimately won’t prevent them. Lawmakers will lose more authority to the president.
Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.