On November 2, White House Chief of Staff Suzy Wells told Vanity Fair that Venezuela’s land strike would need congressional approval. She said if Trump “authorizes something on land that is war, then (we need) Congress.”
Days later, Trump administration officials privately told members of Congress the same thing — that they lacked the legal basis to support an attack on any land targets in Venezuela.
However, just two months later, the Trump administration has accomplished what it previously said it could not do.
It launched what Trump called a “massive attack on Venezuela” and captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro to face charges. It launched this regime change effort without congressional approval.
(Trump claimed in November that his land actions did not require congressional authorization, but that is clearly not the administration’s consensus.)
For now, the mission appears limited to getting rid of Maduro. But as Trump pointed out, it does involve striking domestically — which some in the administration have previously said would require authorization, but which the administration does not have. CNN reported in early November that the government was seeking a new legal opinion from the Justice Department on such attacks.
Trump repeatedly talked at Saturday’s press conference about not just arresting Maduro, but also running Venezuela and taking over its oil — comments that could certainly be read as suggesting it was about more than just arresting Maduro.
Venezuela’s largest military base, Fuerte Tiuna, is seen in flames from a distance after a series of explosions in Caracas on January 3, 2026. The U.S. military carried out a series of attacks on the Venezuelan capital Caracas on Saturday. -AFP/Getty Images
In recent U.S. history, legally dubious attacks conducted within the borders of another country — even ones specifically designed to oust a foreign leader — are not unheard of. But even in this context, this is remarkable.
Changing reasons
That’s because the Trump administration has offered little in the way of a consistent set of justifications or legal framework for the attack. And it doesn’t even appear to have given Congress advance notice, which is usually the minimum in such cases.
A full explanation of the purported rationale has yet to be released, but early signs are often confusing.
Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, said shortly after the attack that Secretary of State Marco Rubio told him the attack was needed to, in Lee’s words, “protect and defend those serving the warrants.”
“This action may fall within the president’s inherent authority under Article II of the Constitution to protect United States personnel from actual or imminent attack,” said Lee, a frequent critic of unauthorized foreign military operations.
Hours later, Vice President JD Vance echoed the sentiment.
“For all the people saying this is ‘illegal,’ Maduro has multiple narco-terrorism charges in the United States,” Vance told X. “You can’t escape the law for drug trafficking in the United States just because you live in a palace in Caracas.”
At a later news conference, Rubio echoed the notion that the military has always supported a “law enforcement function.”
But many people living in other countries have been prosecuted in the United States; launching strikes against foreign countries to bring them to justice is not the norm for the U.S. government.
Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro attends a citizen-military rally in Caracas, Venezuela, on November 25, 2025. – Jesus Vargas/Getty Images/File
The government has also not previously indicated that military force can be used legally for this reason.
Initially, Trump threatened a ground crackdown on drug traffickers in Venezuela — even though Venezuela is clearly a small player in the drug-trafficking game.
Later, the government said the attack might be needed because Venezuela was sending bad actors into the United States.
After initially downplaying the role of oil in the U.S. pressure campaign against Venezuela and Maduro, Trump later said his goal was to recover “the oil, land and other assets that they stole from us before.”
The signals are so confusing that even hawkish Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said in mid-December that the administration’s messaging lacked “clarity.”
“I hope there’s clarity here,” Graham said. “President Trump says his days are numbered. In my opinion, he has to go. If he is to be removed from office because he is a threat to our country, then Say it. What happens next? Don’t you think most people would like to know that? “
While Saturday’s enforcement action was the focus, Trump said at a news conference that the United States would now be involved in the management of Venezuela, at least temporarily. He also talked a lot about its oil.
“We’re going to rebuild our oil infrastructure,” Trump said, adding: “We’re going to run the country right.”
Even if the government provides a more consistent rationale, that doesn’t mean it’s appropriate.
A controversial 1989 memo
The most recent major example of the use of U.S. forces for regime change is, of course, the war in Iraq. That war was authorized by Congress in 2002. The broader war on terror was authorized by Congress in 2001 after the 9/11 attacks.
Since then, governments have sought to justify—sometimes dubiously—several military actions in the Middle East using those authorizations. But the situation in Venezuela is completely different.
While many have compared Venezuela’s efforts to Iraq, a better comparison – and the one the administration clearly intends to make – is Panama in 1989.
Like Venezuela, then-Panamanian leader Manuel Noriega was indicted by the United States, including on drug trafficking charges. As in Venezuela, this operation is less a large-scale war and more a calculated campaign aimed at overthrowing a leader from power.
In 1980, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel concluded that the FBI did not have the authority to arrest and kidnap aliens to face justice. But the George H.W. Bush administration’s OLC quietly reversed course in the summer of 1989.
A memo written by William P. Barr, who later became attorney general in the Bush and first Trump administrations, said the president has “inherent constitutional authority” to order the FBI to detain people in foreign countries even if doing so violates international law.
The memo was quickly used to justify the operation to eliminate Noriega. (As it happens, Noriega was arrested on the same day as Maduro: January 3, 1990.)
But the memo remains controversial. It is also an extremely broad authorization, potentially allowing the United States to deploy military forces anywhere
Pedestrians walk past destroyed containers in the port of La Guaira after an explosion was heard, Saturday, January 3, 2026, in Venezuela. -Matias Delacroix/AP
The situation in Venezuela may be different because it is a larger country whose leader is detained by a foreign country and therefore may be harder to control. It also has significant oil wealth, which means other countries may be interested in what happens next there. (China called the attack a “blatant use of force against a sovereign state.”)
In both a Saturday morning press conference and a Fox News interview, Trump raised the possibility of further military action and stressed that it would go beyond just arresting Maduro.
It also means questions about Trump’s legal authority may be tested again — just as he has already tested them with a crackdown on suspected drug ships of dubious legality and other operations in the region.
What’s clear is that Trump is seeking to once again test the limits of his authority as president — and Americans’ tolerance for it. But this time he’s performing on one of the biggest stages yet. His story of abuse of the law is certainly not over yet.
For more CNN news and newsletters, create an account at CNN.com
