Maduro鈥檚 capture was dramatic, but was it legal? 4 questions.
After the stunning late-night capture of Venezuelan President Nicol谩s Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, by the U.S. military at their home in Caracas, Secretary of State Marco Rubio asked the public to think of the operation in simple terms.
鈥淎t its core, this was an arrest of two indicted fugitives of American justice,鈥� he said during a press conference Jan. 3 at President Donald Trump鈥檚 Mar-a-Lago estate.
The U.S. military, he added, 鈥渟upported the Department of Justice in that job.鈥�
Why We Wrote This
The U.S. military鈥檚 removal of Nicol谩s Maduro from Venezuela to face trial in a U.S. courtroom raises a host of questions about the legality of the Trump administration鈥檚 actions. We look at what international law, domestic law, and historical precedent say about the legal rationale.
Within hours of the arrests, the Justice Department unsealed a 2020 and a listing Mr. Maduro and his wife among several defendants, including his son, charging them with drug smuggling and gun possession crimes.
But is it that simple?
Experts in international and military law 鈥� including some who witnessed another controversial U.S. intervention in Latin America 鈥� say the situation is more complex. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have criticized the Trump administration鈥檚 actions.
Instead of a simple arrest of a runaway fugitive, this was an arrest, in his own country, of a de facto head of state. Under international law, as stated in the charter of the United Nations, heads of state generally have immunity from foreign criminal prosecution. Mr. Maduro was sworn in for a third term as president in January 2025 after an election that was widely considered, including by international observers, to be fraudulent. The United States and the European Union do not recognize Mr. Maduro鈥檚 government.
His arrest on Saturday in Caracas featured support from all branches of the U.S. military and months of preparation. President Trump and Mr. Rubio said prior notification of Congress was not necessary, given their framing of it as a law enforcement operation. The 1973 directs a president to report to the legislative branch within 48 hours of deploying U.S. forces. It鈥檚 an effort to divide authority to wage war between Congress and the president, as the U.S. Constitution ordains.
Mr. Maduro鈥檚 legal journey will now follow the typical path toward a federal trial 鈥� though possibly with the added twist of prisoner-of-war rights. One thing the courts will likely not scrutinize is how Mr. Maduro and his wife, the former president of Venezuela鈥檚 National Assembly, came to be in U.S. custody. Once a defendant is on U.S. soil, courts have said it doesn鈥檛 matter how they came to be there.
What legal justification has the administration provided for the arrest?
The Trump administration has not provided a specific legal reasoning for its actions during the early hours of Jan. 3. But experts believe that two strands of reasoning have emerged from officials鈥� public comments.
First, administration officials argue, President Trump鈥檚 constitutional position as commander in chief gave him the authority to launch the military operation without notifying Congress.
Mr. Trump has cited this authority in recent months as his administration has launched lethal airstrikes on alleged drug traffickers in international waters, killing over 100 people. America is in an armed conflict with Latin American drug cartels, the administration has argued in public statements.聽The Justice Department indictment accuses Mr. Maduro of聽partnering with drug cartels for decades to perpetuate the flow of illegal聽drugs to the United States.
Second, as Secretary Rubio and other officials have said, the operation was not Mr. Trump committing American troops to an armed conflict. The troops were, in fact, supporting an effort to enforce U.S. domestic law on foreign soil. (FBI agents were on the ground in Caracas, meaning American law enforcement personnel were involved.)
鈥淵ou don鈥檛 get to avoid justice for drug trafficking in the United States because you live in a palace in Caracas,鈥� Vice President JD Vance said hours after the arrests.
There is a degree of legal precedent for this. When the U.S. invaded Panama in 1989, William Barr 鈥� then head of the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel and eventually Mr. Trump鈥檚 attorney general 鈥� wrote claiming that the FBI could legally arrest the country鈥檚 dictator, Gen. Manuel Noriega. The memo concluded that the president has 鈥渋nherent constitutional authority鈥� to order the FBI to arrest individuals for violations of U.S. law, 鈥渆ven if those ... arrests are not consistent with international law.鈥�
The president can ignore the U.N. charter 鈥渁nd other unexecuted treaties or treaty provisions that have not become part of the domestic law of the United States,鈥� the memo claimed.
Legal memos are advisory and have no precedential force in the courts. No Trump administration official appears to have publicly cited the memo, which legal pundits are widely discussing as a legal justification that the administration may cite.
There is also historical precedent for U.S. presidents to order military strikes without congressional approval. In 2011, President Barack Obama authorized airstrikes in Libya, and in 1999, President Bill Clinton coordinated an air campaign in Serbia with other NATO countries.
What are critics saying?
The administration says that Mr. Maduro鈥檚 ouster did not require congressional approval since it 鈥渨as not an extended military action鈥� but rather 鈥渁 very precise operation that involved a couple hours of action,鈥� as Mr. Rubio argued on NBC News鈥� 鈥淢eet the Press鈥� on Sunday. But critics see it differently.
The operation included roughly 150 military aircraft launched from 20 military bases, as well as dozens of U.S. Navy ships and the Army鈥檚 Delta Force, a special operations detachment with expertise in pinpointing high-value targets. 鈥淪o of course this was a military action, and pursuant to the Constitution, only Congress has the power to declare war,鈥� Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, a New York Democrat who serves as the House minority leader, told 鈥淢eet the Press.鈥�
At least 32 Cubans who serve in military and intelligence roles in Venezuela were killed in the operation, Cuban officials said Sunday. Mr. Trump told 鈥淔ox & Friends Weekend鈥� that while 鈥渁 couple鈥� of U.S. members of the operation were injured, no one was killed.
One reason some lawmakers weren鈥檛 more forceful in demanding oversight in the run-up to U.S. military operations in the region is because of explicit assurances from Trump officials that the administration was not planning an invasion or regime change operation, says Katherine Yon Ebright, a counsel specializing in war powers at the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law.
The U.S. constitutional system and the War Powers Resolution are designed to compel presidents to 鈥渓oop in Congress鈥� and make public their cases for the use of military force, she adds. 鈥淣one of that has happened here.鈥�
Trump supporters, including House Speaker Mike Johnson, have argued that the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional because it violates the Article 2 powers of the commander in chief. of the Constitution gives Congress the power to 鈥渄eclare war,鈥� 鈥渞aise and support armies,鈥� and 鈥減rovide for a navy,鈥� in addition to its power of the purse.
Yet even among lawmakers who support Mr. Maduro鈥檚 ouster, there are concerns about how U.S. adversaries could interpret the precedents that Mr. Trump is setting.
Rep. Don Bacon, a Nebraska Republican and retired Air Force brigadier general who sits on the House Armed Services Committee, said in a statement Sunday that he believes the operation is 鈥済reat for the future of Venezuelans.鈥�
He added, however, 鈥淢y main concern now is that Russia will use this to justify their illegal and barbaric military action against Ukraine, or China to justify an invasion of Taiwan. Freedom and rule of law were defended last night, but dictators will try to exploit this to rationalize their selfish objectives.鈥�
Sen. Tim Kaine, a Democrat from Virginia, said he plans to force a vote this week to block further U.S. military operations in Venezuela without congressional approval.
What happened in Panama?
The U.S. strike in Venezuela came 36 years to the day after the U.S. removed another regional dictator.
Tensions between the U.S. and Panama had been rising for years before grand juries in Florida indicted Mr. Noriega on charges of drug trafficking in 1988. A year later, Mr. Noriega voided the presidential election in Panama and 鈥渕aximum leader鈥� of the country. Panama鈥檚 National Assembly declared war on the U.S. soon after.
The U.S. had a sizable military presence in the country at the time, stemming from the construction of the Panama Canal in the early 1900s. By the late 鈥�80s, about 10,000 personnel were stationed in Panama, according to the . In December 1989, a U.S. serviceman was shot and killed in Panama City.
President George H.W. Bush ordered an invasion of Panama, citing Panama鈥檚 declaration of war against the U.S. that week and the killing of the U.S. serviceman. Mr. Noriega eventually surrendered to U.S. forces and went on trial. In 1991, he was convicted of drug trafficking charges and sentenced to 40 years in prison.
The two operations share some similarities. Both Mr. Noriega and Mr. Maduro were de facto heads of state under indictment in the U.S. Both were accused of conspiring to traffic drugs to the U.S. Beyond that, however, the two apprehensions have little in common, says Geoffrey Corn, a law professor at Texas Tech University who was serving in the country at the time as an intelligence officer.
鈥淲e went into Panama out of legitimate concern that the lives of Americans were in danger,鈥� he adds. 鈥淲e didn鈥檛 invade a country to arrest somebody.鈥�
What happens now?
Mr. Maduro and his wife appeared in court on Monday after spending Saturday en route to New York City and Sunday in jail. They both pleaded not guilty, with Mr. Maduro saying in Spanish that he was 鈥渃aptured鈥� and 鈥渁 decent man, the president of my country.鈥�
The DOJ charges them with four counts related to drug trafficking and the possession of 鈥渕achineguns and destructive devices.鈥� It lists Mr. Maduro and his wife as co-defendants along with his son, two other Venezuelan government officials, and the leader of the Tren de Aragua gang. (Ms. Flores, Mr. Maduro鈥檚 son, and the Tren de Aragua leader were all added to the superseding indictment released last week.)
According to the indictment, Mr. Maduro 鈥渟its atop a corrupt, illegitimate government that, for decades, has leveraged government power to protect and promote illegal activity, including drug trafficking.鈥�
Per the indictment, Mr. Maduro has used his official powers, since 1999 when he was in the National Assembly, to partner with a half dozen drug cartels across Latin America and 鈥渄istribute tons of cocaine to the United States.鈥�
Mr. Maduro could make several pretrial arguments in future court hearings. Like Mr. Noriega before him, he could claim immunity from prosecution as a foreign head of state.
The courts approved of the prosecution of Mr. Noriega because the U.S. government did not recognize him as the legitimate leader of Panama. The same is true in the case of Mr. Maduro and Venezuela. In fact, multiple Democratic and Republican administrations have refused to recognize Mr. Maduro as Venezuela鈥檚 lawfully elected ruler. The European Union also hasn鈥檛 formally recognized him; 10 nations in Latin America his controversial reelection last year.
Mr. Maduro could also claim that his arrest was unlawful, but that argument appears to be foreclosed by legal precedent. Two U.S. Supreme Court decisions 鈥� known collectively as the 鈥� held that courts have jurisdiction over criminal defendants even if they were not lawfully apprehended.
Mr. Maduro could also ask to be classified as a prisoner of war. This would entitle him to more comfortable confinement than for a typical criminal defendant and the ability to wear a uniform during court appearances, but not much else.
Staff writer Victoria Hoffmann contributed reporting from Boston.
Editor鈥檚 note: This article has been corrected to clarify that it is two strands of legal reasoning that experts have observed in Trump administration comments on the capture of Nicol谩s Maduro and to clarify how the Department of Justice characterized Mr. Maduro's relationship with drug cartels in the 2026 indictment.聽
