Summary: The operation to detain Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro rekindled a deep constitutional dispute over war powers. Article I vests Congress with the power to declare war, while Article II names the President commander in chief — and their interpretations sometimes conflict. Lawmakers responded along party lines: critics say the President overstepped without congressional authorization; proponents argue the action protected U.S. personnel. The administration plans to explain its legal rationale at a scheduled briefing.
Was Nicolás Maduro's Arrest Constitutional? The War‑Powers Debate Explained
Was the arrest of Nicolás Maduro legal?
Friday night’s operation to remove Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro has revived a long-running constitutional dispute over who may authorize the use of force: Congress or the President. The action has drawn sharply partisan reactions and fresh scrutiny of the balance between Article I and Article II of the U.S. Constitution.
Constitutional Tension
Article I, Section 8 grants Congress the power to "declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water." Article II, Section 2 designates the President as "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." Those provisions have been interpreted differently over time, producing a persistent tension over when the President may use military force without explicit congressional authorization.
Article I, Section 8: "Congress shall have power to... declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water."
Article II, Section 2: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States."
How Congress and the Executive Differ
Congress’s own guidance says the President may introduce troops into hostile circumstances only if (1) Congress has declared war, (2) Congress specifically authorized the use of force, or (3) there is a national emergency created by an attack on the United States or its territories. The executive branch traditionally advances a broader reading of Article II, asserting that the President has inherent authority to respond to threats and to protect U.S. personnel.
Relevant Precedents
Technically, the last formal declaration of war was World War II. Major conflicts such as Korea, Vietnam and Iraq involved differing levels of congressional authorization. Other significant military operations — for example, the 2011 raid in Pakistan that killed Osama bin Laden and various strikes against Iranian targets — were undertaken without formal declarations of war. In 2025, President Trump cited an imminent nuclear threat from Iran when he ordered strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, another example of executive-initiated force that did not involve a new declaration of war.
Political Reactions
Responses to the Maduro operation largely fell along party lines. Democrats argued the President exceeded his authority and risked reckless regime change without congressional approval or a clear post-action plan. Rep. Seth Moulton (D‑Mass.), a veteran of four tours in Iraq, called the operation "reckless" and said Congress did not authorize the action.
Some Republicans defended the action as necessary to protect Americans. Sen. Mike Lee (R‑Utah) initially expressed skepticism, saying he wanted to know "what, if anything, might constitutionally justify this action in the absence of a declaration of war or authorization for the use of military force." After a call with Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Lee publicly accepted the explanation that the kinetic measures were taken to protect those executing an arrest warrant and likely fell within the President’s Article II authority to defend U.S. personnel from an actual or imminent attack.
Legal Uncertainty
Whether this action is lawful may ultimately be resolved by politics, congressional oversight, or — potentially — the courts. Legal scholars and judges have disagreed for decades about the outer limits of presidential war-making power. Much will depend on whether officials can demonstrate that U.S. personnel or interests were facing an actual or imminent threat that justified the operation without prior congressional authorization.
What Happens Next: The White House said the President would address constitutional questions at an 11 a.m. ET news conference. Congress may respond with hearings, resolutions, or requests for further information.
Copyright 2026 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved.
Help us improve.
