After the United States Department of Defense attacked Venezuelan drug boats in international waters, the U.S. government followed suit by kidnapping President Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela and his wife on January 2, 2025.
The Venezuelan president had been indicted multiple times in the United States for “narcoterrorism” and holding machine guns amongst other weapons. As a result, without seeking congressional approval, the U.S. departments of defense and state coordinated an attack in which Caracas, the Venezuelan capital, was bombed and Maduro was swept from his military compound. It is estimated that around 40 Venezuelans died from the numerous bombings of the capital.
Maduro and his wife were taken to a federal prison in Brooklyn where they await trial on their indictments, as revealed by U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi. Critics worldwide have questioned the U.S. operation, debating if the president acted within his powers by kidnapping a foreign leader without congressional approval or notification.
The American president has claimed the U.S. will “run” Venezuela for the time being and tap into the nation’s oil reserves; Venezuela has the most reserves globally. He also claims the United States “is getting their oil back”, as it belonged to them before Venezuela pushed out American oil corporations.
The operation has sparked intense debate over whether the president exceeded constitutional authority by ordering military force against Venezuela without congressional approval. While the White House has framed the action as a counter-narcotics operation and a matter of national security, critics argue that abducting a foreign head of state and bombing a sovereign nation amounts to an act of war.
Under the U.S. Constitution, Congress holds the power to declare war, while the president serves as commander in chief of the armed forces. However, modern military conflicts rarely begin with formal declarations, creating what AP Government teacher Mr. Alvarez described as “a battle between Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 — the Declare War Clause — and Article II, Section 2 — the Commander in Chief Clause.” He added that “there is no clear court ruling stipulating who has the final say over starting wars.”
Some members of Congress have attempted to respond. In recent weeks, five Republican senators joined Democrats in a procedural vote aimed at limiting further U.S. military action in Venezuela. However, the measure was unlikely to meaningfully restrict the president’s authority. According to Mr. Alvarez, the vote “really doesn’t limit Trump’s power in any way,” noting that the president has already dismissed the War Powers Act as unconstitutional and criticized Republicans who crossed party lines. Whether it was going to have any effect or not, two of the five senators switched their votes, making it a fifty-fifty draw; the tiebreaker went to Vice President J.D. Vance, who struck down the resolution.
As a result, despite growing criticism, Congress appears unlikely to serve as an immediate check on the administration’s actions.
Beyond domestic debate, the operation has raised questions about international law and national sovereignty. The abduction of a sitting foreign president without international authorization has drawn criticism from global leaders and legal observers, many of whom argue the action undermines long-standing norms against unilateral military intervention. Mr. Alvarez noted that “the UN has very little to no power right now,” emphasizing concerns that such actions weaken global expectations surrounding state sovereignty.
With legal and legislative checks uncertain, political consequences may prove to be the most significant restraint on presidential power. Mr. Alvarez pointed to upcoming midterm elections as a potential turning point, suggesting that a shift in congressional control could lead to impeachment proceedings. However, he expressed skepticism that the Senate would ultimately vote to remove the president from office, highlighting the limits of accountability in a polarized political climate.
With Congress divided and courts unlikely to intervene, accountability for the administration’s actions in Venezuela may ultimately rest with voters.
