Trump’s Arrest of Maduro Sparks Congressional Opposition

On January 3, 2026, U.S. President Donald Trump launched a sudden large-scale military operation in Venezuela, storming the capital Caracas and arresting President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, who were then flown to the United States to face charges including “drug terrorism conspiracy.” While many Venezuelan citizens welcomed the capture of the dictator, the U.S. Congress did not fully support the action and instead raised objections, claiming that Trump’s move was unconstitutional.

The Trump administration maintained that the operation was a law enforcement action targeting transnational crime and protecting U.S. national security. It also positioned the United States as a “protector” of Venezuela’s transitional government, pledging to assist with the reconstruction of infrastructure and security. However, Congress responded with a bipartisan push for a War Powers Resolution, aimed at restricting the president from conducting further military actions without congressional authorization. The Senate has passed the measure through preliminary review, with some legislators arguing that the operation violates constitutional provisions granting Congress the authority to declare war and oversee military actions. In other words, the Constitution empowers Congress to declare war and supervise military decisions, and a unilateral cross-border mission to arrest a foreign head of state could constitute an overreach. Some Democratic lawmakers publicly labeled Trump’s action as “unconstitutional,” and a few even suggested it could be grounds for impeachment.

Internationally, the operation drew widespread condemnation. The UN Security Council convened an emergency meeting, and Venezuela’s ambassador to the UN strongly criticized the United States for violating the principles of the UN Charter, accusing it of infringing on Venezuela’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and warning that it could set a “dangerous precedent.” Several countries, including China, Russia, and parts of Europe, also issued protest statements, asserting that using military force to reshape another sovereign nation’s government breaches international law.

The incident has sparked extensive debate domestically and abroad. Observers note that the event may alter the political landscape in Latin America and could have long-term implications for international law and the principle of state sovereignty. U.S. congressional oversight of presidential military actions and diplomatic relations with Venezuela remain key points of focus.