The legality of the United States’ overnight military operation in Venezuela — which resulted in the capture of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores — has come under intense scrutiny, including from some of President Donald Trump’s allies and leading international law experts.
The Trump administration has acknowledged carrying out what the President described as a “large-scale strike” inside Venezuela, followed by the removal of the country’s leader to face charges in the United States. However, questions remain over whether the operation had a clear legal basis under US or international law.
What the Administration Had Said Before the Strikes
As recently as November, senior Trump administration officials appeared to concede that US land strikes inside Venezuela would require congressional approval.
On November 2, White House chief of staff Susie Wiles told Vanity Fair that if President Trump “were to authorize some activity on land, then it’s war, then (we’d need) Congress”.
Days later, Trump administration officials privately told members of Congress that they lacked the legal justification to support land-based attacks in Venezuela.
CNN had reported in early November that the administration was seeking a fresh legal opinion from the Justice Department to assess whether such strikes could be justified.
What Changed
Despite those earlier positions, the Trump administration went ahead with an operation inside Venezuela just two months later — without seeking or receiving approval from Congress.
Also Read: Iraq Deja Vu? Why Does Trump’s ‘Narco-Terror’ War on Maduro Have Oil Written All Over It
The US launched strikes inside the country and captured Maduro, actions that appear to contradict the administration’s earlier assessment of its own legal authority.
While the White House has so far suggested the mission was limited to removing Maduro, President Trump’s own comments have gone further.
