Did Trump get authority from Congress to attack Venezuela? What we know about the operation targeting Nicolás Maduro
President Donald Trump says the Venezuelan president was captured and flown out of the country following a large-scale U.S. attack.
In a dramatic and still-developing situation, U.S. forces carried out overnight strikes in Venezuela. The Venezuelan government said attacks hit the capital, Caracas, as well as the states of Miranda, La Guaira, and Aragua. Videos circulating widely on social media appear to show aircraft flying overhead and explosions in Caracas, though independent verification remains limited.
Trump said in a post on his Truth Social platform that the United States had launched a “large-scale strike” against Venezuela and that its leader, President Nicolás Maduro, had been captured along with his wife and flown out of the country. As of now, there has been no independent confirmation from U.S. officials or international observers that Maduro is in U.S. custody.
Did President Trump seek authority from Congress to attack Venezuela?
The short answer is no. There is no indication that Donald Trump sought or received advance authorization from Congress before ordering the strikes.
Last month, Trump publicly stated that he did not believe congressional approval was required to launch attacks against targets in Venezuela, including strikes on land. He said he might brief Congress but would not seek formal legal authorization.
In December, Republicans, joined by a small number of Democrats, voted down two separate War Powers resolutions in the House of Representatives that would have required congressional approval for future military action against Venezuela. As a result, Congress did not impose new statutory limits on the president’s authority.
What powers does Trump have to attack Venezuela?
Under the U.S. Constitution, only Congress has the power to declare war. However, the president serves as commander in chief of the armed forces, a role that presidents of both parties have interpreted as granting broad authority to use military force without a formal declaration of war.
The key modern statute governing this area is the War Powers Resolution of 1973. Under the law, the president may introduce U.S. forces into hostilities only in limited circumstances, including a national emergency created by an attack on the United States, its territories, or its armed forces. The Trump administration appears to be relying on this emergency rationale in the Venezuela case.
The law also requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of introducing U.S. forces into hostilities or into foreign territory while equipped for combat. As of now, there is no public confirmation that such a notification has been submitted.
Once U.S. forces are introduced into hostilities, the War Powers Resolution gives the president 60 days to withdraw them unless Congress declares war, passes a specific authorization, or extends the deadline. An additional 30 days is allowed if needed for a safe withdrawal.
The administration’s legal rationale for attacks on Venezuela
Trump and senior officials have repeatedly characterized earlier U.S. actions involving Venezuela, including strikes on boats and at least one reported drone strike, as part of a campaign against drug trafficking and what they describe as “narcoterrorism.”
According to reporting, the White House and the Department of Justice have relied on internal legal memoranda, which have not been made public, arguing that strikes against Venezuelan-linked vessels and facilities are lawful because they target narcotics networks and are comparable to counterterrorism operations against non-state actors. Similar arguments have been used by past administrations to justify military action without explicit congressional authorization.
What comes next after Trump’s attacks on Venezuela
If Trump’s account is accurate, the overnight strikes and the forcible removal of Venezuela’s de facto president would represent a major escalation in U.S. military involvement. The legal justification for the operation has not yet been formally articulated, and it remains unclear whether Congress will move to challenge or constrain the president’s use of force under the War Powers Resolution.
For now, the central legal fact is clear: Congress did not authorize the attack in advance, and the administration is proceeding under a broad interpretation of presidential war powers that is likely to face intense scrutiny in the days ahead.
Related stories
Get your game on! Whether you’re into NFL touchdowns, NBA buzzer-beaters, world-class soccer goals, or MLB home runs, our app has it all.
Dive into live coverage, expert insights, breaking news, exclusive videos, and more – plus, stay updated on the latest in current affairs and entertainment. Download now for all-access coverage, right at your fingertips – anytime, anywhere.