The image reverberated across the globe: President Trump, alongside Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, announcing the capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro. It was a moment of decisive action, a culmination of escalating tensions and covert operations that had been brewing for months.
The immediate fallout was a storm of protest. Democrats decried the operation as an overreach of executive power, a blatant disregard for the Constitution. Senator Bernie Sanders was particularly vocal, accusing the President of showing “contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law,” arguing that unilateral action to wage war or “run” another nation was beyond presidential authority.
However, the argument that a war had even been initiated was flawed. A formal declaration of war rests solely with Congress, and the actions in Venezuela were framed – and legally justified – under existing presidential war powers. While some representatives, like Gregory Meeks, claimed a lack of prior notification, the nature of these powers meant no such briefing was legally required.
The core of the debate centered on the definition of a threat. Critics, such as Representative Seth Moulton, questioned the imminence of any danger posed by Venezuela. But the President, as Commander in Chief, possesses the inherent authority to determine what constitutes a threat to national security – a power enshrined in Article II of the Constitution.
This authority isn’t contingent on a declared emergency or war, nor does it require congressional approval for initial deployments. The President can deploy troops to protect American citizens abroad, defend U.S. interests, fulfill treaty obligations, or respond to attacks – all within the scope of their constitutional role.
Crucially, no external body needs to sanction the President’s judgment. Accountability comes through political channels and the limitations imposed by the War Powers Resolution, but the initial decision to act rests solely with the Commander in Chief. Congress’s influence lies in controlling funding and applying political pressure, not in preemptive authorization.
Immediately, calls arose from both sides of the aisle – Senator Rand Paul, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, Senator Adam Schiff, and Senator Sanders among them – to invoke the War Powers Resolution. Democrats, led by Senator Tim Kaine, formally introduced a resolution demanding congressional authorization for further military action or the withdrawal of U.S. forces.
The resolution gained initial bipartisan traction, fueled by a desire to reassert Congress’s constitutional authority to declare war. It even garnered support from five Republican senators. However, the measure ultimately failed when Vice President JD Vance cast the deciding vote in a 50-50 tie, preserving the President’s course.
The War Powers Resolution of 1973 mandates that the President notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying forces into hostilities and withdraw them after 60 days without congressional authorization. Yet, every administration since its passage has challenged its constitutionality, arguing it infringes upon the President’s Article II powers.
The Trump administration adhered to the notification requirement, but only *after* the operation had commenced, citing concerns that pre-briefing Congress would risk leaks and jeopardize the mission. This approach, while contentious, was justified as falling within the President’s inherent authority to defend national security – a practice routinely employed for drone strikes and limited interventions.
The legal foundation for the operation rested with a crucial, often unseen body: the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) within the Department of Justice. This small office wields immense influence, providing authoritative legal advice to the President and executive branch agencies.
OLC opinions, unless overturned by the Attorney General or the President, are binding on the executive branch and considered settled law. In a December 23rd memorandum, the OLC declared Operation Absolute Resolve lawful under U.S. law, concluding it didn’t constitute “war” in the constitutional sense and therefore required no congressional authorization.
The OLC further determined the operation was a law enforcement mission supported by military assets, operating within existing statutes. Acknowledging a likely violation of international law – specifically the UN Charter’s prohibition on the use of force against sovereign states – the OLC asserted that such breaches do not constrain the President’s authority under U.S. domestic law.
This position reflects a long-standing principle: the Constitution and U.S. statutes govern presidential power, and international treaties do not limit that power without specific implementing legislation. The OLC’s role is to advise on domestic legality, not to adjudicate international compliance – a distinction that has drawn criticism throughout its history.
Despite its controversial past, the OLC’s reasoning in the Venezuela case followed a consistent pattern. Violations of international law are treated as separate concerns, not as restrictions on the President’s Article II authority. The power to act, within the bounds of U.S. law, ultimately resided with the Commander in Chief.
