Wow. Unquestionably, a major event occurred early Saturday morning. The United States conducted what it described as a “large-scale strike” against Venezuela, resulting in the capture and arrest of President Nicolás Maduro.
The first federal charges against Maduro were unsealed by the U.S. Department of Justice in 2020. They include:
- Narco-terrorism conspiracy
- Cocaine importation conspiracy
- Weapons charges
Regarding narco-terrorism, U.S. prosecutors allege that Maduro led the so-called Cartel of the Suns and conspired with the FARC to use cocaine as a “weapon” to flood the United States. The FARC — short for the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia — is a Marxist-Leninist guerrilla group founded in 1964 as the armed wing of the Colombian Communist Party.
On cocaine importation, the allegation is that Maduro intended to move multi-ton shipments of cocaine into the U.S. As for weapons charges, they include the possession of, and conspiracy to possess, machine guns and destructive devices in furtherance of drug trafficking.
Maduro has also long been viewed as an illegitimate president by numerous countries. Both the 2018 and 2024 elections were marred by serious discrepancies, and key opposition parties and candidates were barred from participation. This included leading opposition figure, María Corina Machado (the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize winner), who went into hiding after the 2024 election to avoid arrest. Venezuela, by any measure, has been in crisis.
Suffice it to say, Maduro is not a good guy. But “good guy” or not, such is not justification for a large-scale military strike. And to be clear, my military expertise is minimal at best. The broader problem is that when major military actions occur, many people — also with minimal military expertise — quickly decide whether the action was good, bad, constitutional, or unconstitutional, based largely on who made the decision.
That constitutional question centers on the War Powers Act of 1973. The Act limits a president’s ability to commit U.S. forces to armed conflict without congressional approval. It requires notification to Congress within 48 hours of deploying forces and was intended to restore balance between the executive and legislative branches.
Yet the Act has been contested ever since its passage. Every president since 1973 has argued that at least parts of it unconstitutionally infringe on executive power. Consider their record while in office:
- Gerald Ford ordered the rescue of the SS Mayaguez and oversaw military evacuations in Southeast Asia.
- Jimmy Carter authorized the Iran hostage rescue mission.
- Ronald Reagan invaded Grenada, ordered airstrikes in Libya, and deployed Marines to Lebanon.
- George H. W. Bush invaded Panama and sent troops to Somalia.
- Bill Clinton deployed troops to Haiti and conducted bombing campaigns in Bosnia and Kosovo, as well as strikes in Iraq, Sudan and Afghanistan.
- Barack Obama authorized a seven-month air campaign in Libya and expanded drone operations across multiple countries.
- Donald Trump (in his first term) ordered missile strikes in Syria and the strike that killed Iranian General Qassem Soleimani.
- Joe Biden authorized multiple airstrikes against Iranian-backed militias in Syria and Iraq.
All of these actions occurred without prior congressional approval.
Was the capture and arrest of Nicolás Maduro a good thing?
I don’t know. What I do know is this: we live in a beautifully diverse community in Central Florida, with many residents from Central and South America — Venezuela included. While my polling data may indeed be inexact, to a person, the Venezuelans here are jubilant about what just happened.
Good or bad? Constitutional or not? Hard to say. But there is much to evaluate, and consistency matters — especially when considering the precedent and people.
Respectfully…
AR