US captured a sitting President, and his wife from Venezuela. Was Trump's action legal? | Today News

The capture of a sitting foreign head of state by United States forces represents an extraordinary escalation in American overseas action, raising profound questions about international law, constitutional authority, and the scope of presidential power. On Saturday, US President Donald Trump confirmed that American troops had carried out what he described as a “large-scale strike” inside Venezuela, resulting in the arrest of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, both of whom now face terrorism and narcotics-related charges in New York.

The US operation, undertaken without prior congressional authorisation, has prompted intense scrutiny from legal scholars, lawmakers, and foreign governments, many of whom question whether the action can be reconciled with either US constitutional law or international legal norms.

Under the US Constitution, Congress holds 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 that tradition, the Venezuelan operation appears exceptional.

As recently as November, senior officials within the Trump administration had acknowledged that military strikes on Venezuelan territory would require congressional approval.

On November 2, White House chief of staff Susie Wiles told Vanity Fair that if Donald Trump “were to authorize some activity on land, then it’s war, then (we’d need) Congress.”

Administration officials subsequently conveyed similar assessments to members of Congress in private briefings, stating that no clear legal basis existed for land-based military action against Venezuela.

Despite those assessments, US forces proceeded with an operation involving strikes inside Venezuelan territory and the forcible removal of its president — without notifying or seeking authorisation from Congress in advance.

In the absence of a formal legal memorandum from the White House or the Department of Justice, senior figures have offered overlapping — and at times conflicting — explanations.

Republican Senator Mike Lee of Utah said Secretary of State Marco Rubio told him the action was necessary to “protect and defend those executing the arrest warrant” against Maduro.

“This action likely falls within the president’s inherent authority under Article II of the Constitution to protect US personnel from an actual or imminent attack,” Lee said.

Vice President JD Vance reinforced that interpretation in a post on X, writing: “And PSA for everyone saying this was ‘illegal’: Maduro has multiple indictments in the United States for narcoterrorism. You don’t get to avoid justice for drug trafficking in the United States because you live in a palace in Caracas.”

At a later press conference, Rubio characterised the military operation as support for “a law enforcement function”.

Legal experts, however, note that this rationale would mark a significant departure from established practice. The US has historically relied on extradition, diplomacy, or covert intelligence operations — not overt military force — to apprehend foreign nationals indicted in American courts.

President Trump’s public statements have further blurred the legal justification for the operation. While officials initially framed the mission narrowly around arresting Maduro, Trump spoke repeatedly about broader objectives, including governance and resource control.

“We’re going to rebuild the oil infrastructure,” Trump said, adding later: “We’re going to run the country right.”

He also stated that the US would reclaim “the oil, land, and other assets that they previously stole from us.”

Such remarks have strengthened arguments that the operation may amount to an act of regime change rather than a limited enforcement action — a distinction with significant legal consequences under both domestic and international law.

While comparisons have been drawn with the 2003 Iraq war, legal scholars argue that the more relevant precedent is the US intervention in Panama in 1989, which resulted in the capture of Panamanian leader Manuel Noriega.

Like Maduro, Noriega was under US indictment for drug trafficking. His removal relied on a controversial Office of Legal Counsel memorandum issued in 1989, authored by William P. Barr, which asserted that a president possessed “inherent constitutional authority” to order the apprehension of foreign nationals abroad — even if such actions violated international law.

That interpretation has never been definitively tested in court and remains deeply contested. Critics argue that it grants the executive branch near-unlimited authority to deploy military force for law enforcement purposes worldwide.

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 shields sitting heads of state from arrest by foreign jurisdictions, except under narrowly defined circumstances such as international tribunal mandates.

China has already condemned the operation as a “blatant use of force against a sovereign state”, and other governments are expected to raise the issue in multilateral forums.

Venezuela’s geopolitical significance further complicates the picture. The country holds approximately 303 billion barrels of proven crude oil reserves — the largest in the world — representing nearly 20 per cent of global reserves.

Analysts warn that Maduro’s removal could trigger internal instability, invite external intervention, or transform Venezuela into a focal point of great-power competition, particularly involving China and Russia.