From striking alleged drug boats to invading a foreign country, the Trump Administration, in an attempt to combat drug trafficking, abducted Venezuelan President Nicholas Maduro and his wife on January 3.
After months of monitoring the moves of the Venezuelan dictatorial ruler, “Operation Absolute Resolve” was set in motion: apprehending the 63-year-old within two hours and 20 minutes—without notifying Congress beforehand.
After Maduro’s arrest, the Trump Administration framed illegal drugs as the main motivating factor behind the operation. However, Trump’s words on “forcing regime change” and Venezuela’s oil supply may suggest otherwise.
“[Trump] added the operation was in line with a foreign policy doctrine that asserts U.S. influence in the Western Hemisphere,” The Times Magazine said. “He has also expressed a desire to control Venezuela’s oil industry, claiming that the country had ‘stolen’ it from the U.S.”
Now being held in the Metropolitan Detention Center in New York, Maduro is facing charges for narco-terrorism—conspiring with terrorists in dealing narcotics—and drug trafficking.
The University of Chicago News provided that the United States can “apply its drug laws to individuals abroad who are involved in trafficking narcotics into the U.S.”
According to The New York Times, the difficulty of this case lies in convincing the jury that Maduro was connected to narco-trafficking groups, as many of the victims involved may not even be alive anymore.
As for the controversy arising from the U.S.’s unprecedented military action, Americans across the country have been debating whether Trump’s actions were truly constitutional.
“[The constitutionality of the Venezuela invasion] is unclear. The Constitution gives Congress, not the president, the power to declare war. But presidents have long asserted the right to engage in limited military operations without seeking congressional authorization,” University of Chicago professor Curtis Bradley said. “It can be argued that [the President’s] powers are sufficient to support the Maduro operation.”
Others cite the unconstitutionality of the Trump Administration’s military in accordance with the Constitution.
“Trump’s bombing and regime-decapitation operation in Venezuela was unconstitutional,” The Brennan Center for Justice said.
“There were no threats to U.S. troops or imminent attack on our country preceding the Venezuela operation. The use of offensive force is constitutionally permissible only if Congress has authorized action, as it did before the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.”
Many grow concerned over the future of Venezuela and the future of the U.S.’s foreign affairs.
“The U.S. now claims it will ‘run’ Venezuela… issuing directives and ultimatums backed by threats of force,” University of Chicago professor Michael Bradley.