Source and Courtesy: AP News Agency

Washington — The Trump administration’s capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and claims that it will “run” the country are raising serious legal and constitutional questions, according to experts and lawmakers. The operation, which transported Maduro and his wife to a U.S. warship to face narco-terrorism charges in New York, followed months of U.S. military action in the region, including strikes on drug-trafficking boats that have killed more than 115 people since September, Associated Press reported.

Legal experts say the seizure is unprecedented. Jimmy Gurule, a former U.S. attorney, called it “a blatant, illegal and criminal act,” while former Air Force lawyer Michael Schmitt described it as an act of international armed conflict, effectively putting the U.S. “at war” with Venezuela. Unlike past U.S. operations in Panama or Iraq, Congress has not authorized military or law enforcement action in Venezuela, raising questions about the limits of presidential war powers.

The Trump administration has justified its actions by labeling Venezuelan drug cartels as “unlawful combatants” and declaring an “armed conflict” with them, a rationale not previously tested in U.S. law. Critics warn that seizing control of Venezuela’s government and resources could set a dangerous precedent internationally, potentially encouraging other nations like China or Russia to act similarly.

Congressional leaders, including Senate Majority Leader John Thune and House Speaker Mike Johnson, have demanded briefings on the operation, while Democratic leaders such as Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries expressed alarm at the administration’s claim that it would now run Venezuela. Schumer said, “The idea that Trump plans to now run Venezuela should strike fear in the hearts of all Americans,” pointing to the legal and moral implications of governing another country by force.

Sen. Mark Warner, top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, questioned the precedent it sets: “Beyond the legality, what kind of precedent does it send?” He noted concerns about reconstruction, resource control, and the potential use of Venezuelan oil revenue to fund U.S. operations, drawing parallels to post-Iraq War planning.

While Republican lawmakers generally praised the operation for removing a leader accused of drug trafficking, bipartisan concerns over legality and Congress’s lack of authorization remain. A Senate vote on a war powers resolution aimed at limiting the president’s actions in Venezuela is expected next week.

The operation marks one of the most aggressive U.S. interventions in Latin America in decades and has sparked a global debate over presidential authority, international law, and the long-term consequences of the U.S. effectively taking control of a sovereign nation.