Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro’s wife arrived to court in New York City wearing bandages on her face and complaining of bruises on her ribs, according to her lawyer.

Her attorney, veteran prosecutor Mark Donnelly, told the court that Cilia Flores suffered ‘significant injuries’ when U.S. forces raided the couple’s compound in Caracas on Saturday. Donnelly requested that Flores receive a full X-ray to determine whether she fractured a rib in the incident.

Flores was already wearing two bandages on her face, one on her forehead and another above her eye.

Both she and her husband pleaded not guilty to narco-terrorism and other charges in their first appearance on Monday.

Maduro faces four charges: narco-terrorism conspiracy, cocaine importation conspiracy, possession of machine guns and destructive devices and conspiracy to possess machine guns and destructive devices.

Flores faces three charges, including cocaine importation conspiracy, possession of machine guns and destructive devices, and conspiracy to possess machine guns and destructive devices.

Donnelly filed a motion to serve as counsel for Flores earlier Monday. He previously served 12 years at the Department of Justice, including as senior advisor to the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Texas.

‘Mark has extensive experience investigating white collar cases, having run the Southern District’s fraud division for over two years. His white collar practice included FCPA investigations, Healthcare Fraud, joint SEC matters, large scale investor fraud, and cyber security matters,’ Donnelly’s biography on the website for the Parker Sanchez & Donnelly law firm reads.

The Texas House of Representatives also enlisted Donnelly to assist in the 2023 investigation and impeachment trial for Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. Paxton’s impeachment case made it to the Texas Senate, but he was ultimately acquitted on all charges.

Maduro and Flores, who have been married for 12 years, were first introduced while working closely with Maduro’s predecessor, Hugo Chávez. At the time, Maduro described her as having a ‘fiery character,’ according to Reuters.

The pair did not marry until nearly two decades after first meeting, after Maduro was elected president in 2013.

Fox News’ Emma Bussey contributed to this report.

Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado has vowed to return to Venezuela ‘as soon as possible’ following America’s capture of dictator Nicolás Maduro, warning that the current regime is escalating an internal crackdown on dissent and journalists.

Speaking to ‘Hannity’ on Monday, Machado said the moment is now right for her return after spending more than a year in hiding. She secretly escaped Venezuela last month and traveled to Norway to receive the Nobel Peace Prize, which she dedicated to President Donald Trump.

‘Well, first of all, I’m planning to go back to Venezuela as soon as possible,’ Machado said. 

‘As I’ve always said, Sean, every day I make a decision where I am more useful for our cause. That’s why I stayed in hiding for over 16 months, and that’s why I decided to go out, because I believed that at this moment I’m more useful to our cause, being able to speak out from where I’m at right now. But I’m going to go as soon possible back home.’

Machado said developments in the past 24 hours have been deeply concerning, pointing to what she described as a sweeping executive order signed by Maduro on the same day he was captured and flown out of the country by U.S. forces.

‘What we’re seeing right now in the last 24 hours is really alarming,’ she said.

Machado said the order mandates the persecution of Venezuelans who support Trump’s actions and claimed at least 14 journalists have been detained. A state of emergency decree issued Saturday, but published Monday, orders police to ‘immediately begin the national search and capture of everyone involved in the promotion or support for the armed attack by the United States,’ the text of the decree reads, according to Reuters.

She said the situation must be closely monitored by the United States and the Venezuelan people, arguing that the transition away from Maduro must continue.

‘So this is very alarming. This is something that has to be followed carefully, I’m sure, by the United States government and by the Venezuelan people,’ she said. ‘And certainly we believe that this transition should move forward.’

Machado also sharply criticized Venezuelan Vice President Delcy Rodríguez, calling her unfit to lead any transitional authority. Rodríguez, who has been vice president under Maduro since 2018, was sworn in as interim president on Monday.

‘Delcy Rodriguez, as you know, is one of the main architects of torture, persecution, corruption, narco trafficking,’ Machado said. ‘She’s the main ally and liaison with Russia, China, Iran, certainly not an individual that could be trusted by international investors. And she’s really rejected, repudiated by the Venezuelan people.’

Machado’s comments came just two days after the Trump administration announced that U.S. forces had captured the dictator and his wife, Cilia Flores, after successful ‘large-scale’ military strikes targeting the Venezuelan government. The dictator and his wife are now being held in New York while they await trial on narco-terrorism charges.

Fox News’ Maria Lencki and Louis Casiano contributed to this report.

President Donald Trump is set to huddle with House Republicans on Tuesday morning, days after the U.S. government executed strikes in Venezuela and captured the country’s leader Nicolás Maduro. 

Trump will address GOP lawmakers at the newly renamed Donald J. Trump and John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts, multiple sources told Fox News Digital. 

A White House schedule released late on Monday said Trump will speak around 10 a.m., and that his remarks will be streamed live.

House Republicans will be at the Trump Kennedy Center for an all-day policy forum Tuesday aimed at discussing their agenda for 2026, according to an email obtained by Fox News Digital.

It comes the day House lawmakers return from a two-week recess for the end-of-year holiday period.

Part of the day’s agenda was meant to include remarks by Trump to rally Republicans around their legislative priorities, but three sources told Fox News Digital they anticipate Venezuela will be a focus of the day as well.

‘My guess is he does 30 minutes on Venezuela and five on policy,’ one House GOP source told Fox News Digital.

Another source told Fox News Digital, ‘I would expect him to give a pretty typical rally-type speech … but who knows.’

That source expressed frustration that Republicans were waiting ‘until we get back to work to strategize.’

Meanwhile, Rep. Mike Haridopolos, R-Fla., also said he expected Trump’s remarks to focus heavily on Venezuela.

‘I think the president is going to walk through not only the justification he had for it, which is the court of law in the United States, but also the fact that, how legitimate is a country if the… Canadians, the [European Union], and the United States, no one recognizes this guy? The only people who recognize him are our enemies,’ the Florida Republican said.

Rep. Wesley Hunt, R-Texas, who is challenging Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, for his Senate seat, said he anticipated Trump to discuss November’s elections as well.

Asked what he thought he’d hear from the president, Hunt told Fox News Digital he could see Trump discussing ‘the successes of the administration, how important it’s been, what happened in Caracas a couple of days ago…codifying his agenda, and winning the midterms.’

‘I think we’re going to hear a lot of that,’ Hunt said.

President Donald Trump’s announcement that the United States will temporarily ‘run’ Venezuela following the capture of Nicolás Maduro may prove to be a defining moment for the Western Hemisphere — either a disciplined effort to restore regional stability or the opening chapter of an avoidable, open-ended entanglement.

At his Mar-a-Lago press conference on Saturday, the president stated plainly, ‘We will run the country until such time as we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition.’ He added that members of his national security team standing behind him would oversee the effort and did not rule out ‘boots on the ground.’ Hours later, speaking aboard Air Force One, he sharpened the message further: ‘We’re going to run it, fix it.’

The strategic logic is easy to understand. Venezuela sits atop the world’s largest proven oil reserves and has become a hub for narcotics trafficking, corruption and malign outside influence. The administration’s December 2025 National Security Strategy explicitly embraces what it calls a ‘Trump Corollary’ to the Monroe Doctrine — pledging to deny non-hemispheric competitors such as China, Russia and Iran control over strategically vital assets in the Americas. In that framework, Venezuela is not merely a humanitarian tragedy; it is a test case.

But this is precisely where experience should sober ambition.

The first problem: Who is actually in charge?

A central contradiction now confronts Washington. How does the United States ‘run’ Venezuela when its constitutionally designated vice president, Delcy Rodríguez, has already been sworn in domestically as interim president following Maduro’s removal?

Rodríguez’s claim to authority — backed by Venezuela’s Supreme Tribunal of Justice and regime-loyal institutions — is rejected by Washington as illegitimate. Yet in practical terms, ministries, security forces and regional authorities inside Venezuela remain staffed by officials loyal to the old system. That means the United States is not governing Venezuela in name, law or day-to-day administration — even as presidential rhetoric suggests otherwise.

This disconnect between declared authority and actual control is where post-conflict operations often fail.

Lessons written in blood: Iraq and the cost of improvisation

I learned that lesson firsthand. In 2002 and 2003, I served as a member of then–Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s Military Analyst Group. We were given extensive access — briefings, travel and candid discussions with officials planning both the Iraq invasion and what would follow.

In early 2003, several of us met with retired officers outlining postwar governance plans. We asked basic but essential questions: Who would secure ministries? How would local governance function? How would electricity, water and fuel distribution be restored? The answers were often vague, more aspirational than operational.

After the invasion, I visited Baghdad and met with Coalition Provisional Authority officials under Ambassador Paul Bremer. Again, the gaps were obvious. We had removed a regime but had not built the machinery needed to prevent the vacuum that follows. 

One decision still echoes: the CPA’s order dissolving Iraq’s security institutions, including the Ministry of Defense. RAND’s official history records that the order was issued with little objection at senior levels, even as misunderstandings were masked by apparent consensus. The result was predictable — security collapsed, insurgency surged and the U.S. presence expanded far beyond its original scope.

Venezuela now risks a similar mistake. Capturing Maduro may prove to be the easy part. Governing what comes next is the hard part — and the part America has too often improvised.

Panama is the wrong analogy

Some have compared Venezuela today to Panama in 1989, when U.S. forces captured Manuel Noriega and quickly installed Guillermo Endara as president. The comparison is tempting — and deeply misleading.

Panama was small, U.S. forces were already present, and a recognized successor government was ready to assume power. Venezuela, by contrast, has 30 million people, no broadly accepted transitional authority and entrenched military-criminal networks embedded throughout the state. What worked in Panama cannot simply be scaled up to Caracas.

‘Not day-to-day governance’— what that really means

Secretary of State Marco Rubio has since clarified that the United States does not intend to govern Venezuela ‘day-to-day.’ That clarification matters — but it raises its own questions. If Washington is not running ministries, courts, budgets or police forces, what does that leadership look like?

In real terms, it appears the administration is signaling a model of indirect control rather than occupation. The primary lever is economic, especially oil.

Venezuela’s political and military elites survive on access to oil revenues. Whoever controls export permissions, sanctions relief, insurance access and dollar-denominated transactions controls the real center of gravity. Conditioning access to those revenues — while freezing assets abroad and coordinating sanctions enforcement with allies — offers Washington leverage over the top of the system without governing the country outright.

That approach amounts to influence without occupation: pressure without American administrators running Caracas.

A narco-state is not a one-man show

There is also a dangerous illusion at work — that removing Maduro dismantles the regime.

Maduro sat at the apex of a narco-state and was indicted in U.S. courts on charges of drug trafficking and narco-terrorism. But he did not act alone. His power rested on a network of generals, intelligence chiefs, judges, energy officials and cartel intermediaries who enriched themselves under the existing system. Many of those figures remain in place today.

They are unlikely to surrender quietly. Some will seek accommodation; others will resist through bureaucratic sabotage, violence or the manipulation of public fear. Without a credible transitional framework anchored in Venezuelan civil society and supported by international legitimacy, the system Maduro built may survive him.

The questions that must be answered — now

If the administration wants to avoid repeating Iraq, it must answer several questions publicly and soon.

What is the legal basis — and limit — of U.S. authority? Who provides immediate security, and under what rules? Which Venezuelan partners will be empowered to lead? What economic plan serves Venezuelans first, not just foreign interests? And how does this mission end?

Once the United States assumes responsibility for ‘running’ another country, it inherits responsibility not only for success but for failure.

The Trump administration can still make Venezuela a model rather than a warning. But doing so will require discipline: clearly defined objectives, credible Venezuelan partners, continuity in security forces, transparent reconstruction tied to humanitarian relief and an exit strategy that is real — not rhetorical.

Venezuela is not Iraq. But history has a way of repeating itself when preparation yields to improvisation.

Dan Bongino returned to private life on Sunday after serving as deputy director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for less than a year.

Bongino said on X that Saturday was his last day on the job before he would return to ‘civilian life.’

‘It’s been an incredible year thanks to the leadership and decisiveness of President Trump. It was the honor of a lifetime to work with Director Patel, and to serve you, the American people. See you on the other side,’ he wrote.

The former FBI deputy director announced in mid-December that he would be leaving his role at the bureau at the start of the new year.

President Donald Trump previously praised Bongino, who assumed office in March, for his work at the FBI.

‘Dan did a great job. I think he wants to go back to his show,’ Trump told reporters.

Bongino spoke publicly about the personal toll of the job during a May appearance on ‘Fox & Friends,’ saying he had sacrificed a lot to take the role.

‘I gave up everything for this,’ he said, citing the long hours both he and FBI Director Kash Patel work.

‘I stare at these four walls all day in D.C., by myself, divorced from my wife — not divorced, but I mean separated — and it’s hard. I mean, we love each other, and it’s hard to be apart,’ he added.

Bongino’s departure leaves Andrew Bailey, who was appointed co-deputy director in September 2025, as the bureau’s other deputy director.

It can fairly be said that the most precarious jobs in the world are those of a golf ball collector at a driving range, a mascot at a Chuck E. Cheese and a Trump administration lawyer.

That was evident at the press conference yesterday as President Donald Trump blew apart the carefully constructed narrative presented earlier for the seizure of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores. Some of us had written that Trump had a winning legal argument by focusing on the operation as the seizure of two indicted individuals in reliance on past judicial rulings, including the decisions in the case of former Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Air Force Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stayed on script and reinforced this narrative. Both repeatedly noted that this was an operation intended to bring two individuals to justice and that law enforcement personnel were part of the extraction team to place them in legal custody. Rubio was, again, particularly effective in emphasizing that Maduro was not the head of state but a criminal dictator who took control after losing democratic elections.

However, while noting the purpose of the capture, Trump proceeded to declare that the United States would engage in nation-building to achieve lasting regime change. He stated that they would be running Venezuela to ensure a friendly government and the repayment of seized U.S. property dating back to the government of Maduro’s mentor and predecessor, Hugo Chávez.

This city is full of self-proclaimed Trump whisperers who rarely score above random selection in their predictions. However, there are certain pronounced elements in Trump’s approach to such matters. First, he is the most transparent president in my lifetime, with prolonged (at times excruciatingly long) press conferences and a brutal frankness about his motivations. Second, he is unabashedly and undeniably transactional in most of his dealings. He is not ashamed to state what he wants the country to get out of the deal.

In Venezuela, he wants a stable partner, and he wants oil.

Chávez and Maduro had implemented moronic socialist policies that reduced one of the most prosperous nations to an economic basket case. They brought in Cuban security thugs to help keep the population under repressive conditions, as a third fled to the United States and other countries.

After an extraordinary operation to capture Maduro, Trump was faced with socialist Maduro allies on every level of the government. He is not willing to allow those same regressive elements to reassert themselves.

The problem is that, if the purpose was regime change, this attack was an act of war, which is why Rubio struggled to bring the presser back to the law enforcement purpose. I have long criticized the erosion of the war declaration powers of Congress, including my representation of members of Congress in opposition to Obama’s Libyan war effort.

The fact, however, is that we lost that case. Trump knows that. Courts have routinely dismissed challenges to undeclared military offensives against other nations. In fairness to Trump, most Democrats were as quiet as church mice when Obama and Hillary Clinton attacked Libya’s capital and military sites to achieve regime change without any authorization from Congress. They were also silent when Obama vaporized an American under this ‘kill list’ policy without even a criminal charge. So please spare me the outrage now.

My strong preferences for congressional authorization and consultation are immaterial. The question I am asked as a legal analyst is whether this operation would be viewed as lawful. The answer remains yes.

The courts have previously upheld the authority of presidents to seize individuals abroad, including the purported heads of state. This case is actually stronger in many respects than the one involving Noriega. Maduro will now make the same failed arguments that Noriega raised. He should lose those challenges under existing precedent. If courts apply the same standards to Trump (which is often an uncertain proposition), Trump will win on the right to seize Maduro and bring him to justice.

But then, how about the other rationales rattled off at Mar-a-Lago? In my view, it will not matter. Here is why:

The immediate purpose and result of the operation was to capture Maduro and to bring him to face his indictment in New York. That is Noriega 2.0. The administration put him into custody at the time of extraction with law enforcement personnel and handed him over to the Justice Department for prosecution.

The Trump administration can then argue that it had to deal with the aftermath of that operation and would not simply leave the country without a leader or stable government. Trump emphasized, ‘We’re going to run the country until such time as we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition.’

I still do not like the import of those statements. Venezuelans must be in charge of their own country and our role, if any, must be to help them establish a democratic and stable government. Trump added, ‘We can’t take a chance that somebody else takes over Venezuela that doesn’t have the good of the Venezuelan people in mind.’

The devil is in the details. Venezuelans must decide who has their best interests in mind, not the United States.

However, returning to the legal elements, I do not see how a court could free Maduro simply because it disapproves of nation-building. Presidents have engaged in such policies for years. The aftermath of the operation is distinct from its immediate purpose. Trump can argue that, absent countervailing action from Congress, he has the authority under Article II of the Constitution to lay the foundation for a constitutional and economic revival in Venezuela.

He will leave it to his lawyers to make that case. It is not the case that some of us preferred, but it is the case that he wants to be made. He is not someone who can be scripted. It is his script and he is still likely to prevail in holding Maduro and his wife for trial.

As President Donald Trump  vows to return U.S. energy investment to Venezuela, the Latin American country remains on the hook for billions of dollars owed to American energy companies following years-old legal battles over oil contracts.

Once a key supplier to global oil markets, Venezuela reshaped its relationship with international energy companies in the mid-2000s, as then-President Hugo Chávez tightened state control over the oil industry.

Between 2004 and 2007, Chávez effectively forced foreign companies to renegotiate their contracts with the government. The new terms sharply reduced the role and profits of private firms while strengthening Venezuela’s state-owned oil company, Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PDVSA).

The move drove some of the world’s largest oil companies out of the country.

ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips exited Venezuela in 2007 and later filed claims against the government in international arbitration courts. Those courts ultimately ruled in favor of the companies, ordering Venezuela to pay ConocoPhillips more than $10 billion and ExxonMobil more than $1 billion.

While precise figures are difficult to verify since Venezuela has not published comprehensive debt statistics in years, the International Monetary Fund estimates the country’s economy will total about $82.8 billion in 2025. 

Debt levels, however, stand at nearly 200% of that total, meaning Venezuela owes nearly two dollars for every dollar it produces. 

On top of that, Venezuela has failed to repay about $60 billion in bonds, with total foreign debt rising to roughly $150 billion when loans from its top financial bankers, including Russia and China, are included.

PDVSA also issued a bond that was supposed to be repaid in 2020, backed by a majority ownership stake in U.S.-based refiner Citgo as collateral. The state-run oil company later defaulted on that payment, putting Citgo in the legal crosshairs of creditors seeking to recover billions they are owed.

The cash-strapped country, which sits atop of the globe’s largest oil reserves, has paid only a fraction of those awards.

Chevron, however, remained in the country, becoming the only U.S. energy company still operating in Venezuela amid years of sanctions, economic collapse and political turmoil.

In a statement to Fox News Digital, Chevron said the firm was following ‘relevant laws and regulations’ but declined to comment on future investment plans in Venezuela.

‘Chevron remains focused on the safety and well-being of our employees, as well as the integrity of our assets,’ the statement added.

On Saturday, Trump told reporters at Mar-a-Lago that he wanted U.S. oil companies to ‘spend billions of dollars, fix the badly broken oil infrastructure and start making money for the country.’

He added that the United States ‘built Venezuela’s oil industry with American talent, drive and skill,’ and said that once the country’s energy sector is revived, the U.S. would sell that oil to markets around the world.

Venezuela’s heavy financial liabilities underscore the hurdles U.S. energy companies would face in committing new investment, despite Trump’s pledge to reengage.

President Donald Trump and Elon Musk appear to have repaired their once-strained relationship, according to a post shared by the billionaire Tesla founder on X.

In a post shared Sunday, Musk wrote, ‘Had a lovely dinner last night with @POTUS and @FLOTUS,’ before adding, ‘2026 is going to be amazing!’

The photo, taken from a Saturday evening event at Mar-a-Lago in Florida, sparked speculation that the pair’s bromance may be back on after more than a year of tension.

After the 2024 campaign, Musk became one of the Republican Party’s biggest political donors, contributing hundreds of millions of dollars, according to Reuters.

Trump later tapped Musk to advise the government efficiency effort and set up DOGE, focused on reducing federal spending and streamlining operations – but Musk stepped back from the role in mid-2025 amid mounting criticism. 

Tensions also resurfaced when Musk publicly criticized Trump-backed spending proposals and raised concerns about the size of federal outlays.

‘I’m sorry, but I just can’t stand it anymore,’ Musk said in a June 3 post about Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill.

‘This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination. Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it,’ Musk complained.

Trump shot back that he was ‘very disappointed’ in Musk’s criticism of his bill at the time before adding, ‘Elon and I had a great relationship. I don’t know if we will anymore.’

Musk shot back on X saying, ‘Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate.’

At one point, Musk suggested he could form a new political party. But by late 2025, both sides appeared to strike a more conciliatory tone.

In September, the two were seen shaking hands at Charlie Kirk’s memorial service in a box at State Farm Stadium in Glendale, Arizona.

Musk was also seen at a White House dinner in November as Trump hosted Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. 

FOX Business’ Edward Lawrence also asked Trump at a cabinet meeting on Dec. 2 if Musk was ‘back in [his] circle of friends’ after their falling out.

‘Well, I really don’t know. I mean, I like Elon a lot,’ Trump replied.

Fox News Digital has reached out to the White House for comment.

President Donald Trump issued a pointed warning to Venezuela’s new leader on Sunday, suggesting severe consequences if she continues to resist U.S. demands following the American-led operation that resulted in the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.

In an interview with The Atlantic, Trump said Delcy Rodríguez would ‘pay a very big price, probably bigger than Maduro’ if she fails to ‘do what’s right,’ adding that his administration would not tolerate what he described as her defiant rejection of the U.S. intervention.

Defending that approach, Trump said, ‘Rebuilding there and regime change, anything you want to call it, is better than what you have right now. Can’t get any worse,’ he added.

The White House did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment. 

Trump’s remarks followed a stunning predawn announcement Saturday that U.S. operators had carried out a mission to capture Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife.

Speaking at a news conference at Mar-a-Lago, Trump said a U.S.-appointed team would ‘run Venezuela’ until the country’s political leadership was stabilized.

He also pledged a return of U.S. energy investment to the cash-strapped Latin American country which sits atop the world’s largest oil reserves. 

Trump framed his foreign policy approach, according to The Atlantic, through what he described as a modernized version of the Monroe Doctrine, the 19th-century policy opposing European colonial influence in the Western Hemisphere. 

Trump referred to his approach as the ‘Donroe Doctrine.’

Trump also hinted that Venezuela would not be the last nation to face U.S. pressure, raising the prospect of additional interventions beyond Latin America.

As an example, he reiterated his long-standing interest in Greenland, a semiautonomous territory of Denmark, a NATO ally.

‘We do need Greenland, absolutely,’ Trump told the magazine, citing U.S. national security interests and strategic location.

To the surprise of no one, Democrats reflexively denounced Trump’s daring middle-of-the-night grab of Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro and his wife.  

If Joe Biden, who offered a $25 million reward for Maduro’s arrest, had done what Trump did, these same politicians would be organizing a ticker-tape parade.  

Their condemnation of Trump has nothing to do with the law, although they pretend that it does. Instead, it is transparently driven by their contempt for a president that they despise.

Bereft of reason, they oppose whatever Trump does even if it conforms to their previously expressed beliefs.

Almost in unison, Democrats decried Trump’s action as ‘illegal,’ ‘unjustified’ and ‘unconstitutional.’ Many insisted that he was required to seek permission from Congress.  

None of that happens to be true. 

Inherent Constitutional Authority

The president is empowered by the U.S. Constitution as commander in chief of the armed forces to direct military action to protect Americans, fortify U.S. interests and defend our national security.  

The scourge of drugs emanating from Venezuela has long been poisoning our citizens. Our government estimates that roughly 200 to 250 metric tons of cocaine is shipped out of the Latin American country annually. America, by virtue of its prosperity, is a favored destination.  

On this basis alone, the incursion into Caracas was legal, justified, and legitimate.

For years, Maduro has led the notorious Cartel de los Soles, a violent drug cartel that is designated by the U.S. as a foreign terrorist organization responsible for murders, torture and crimes against humanity so egregious that even the United Nations recognized it.

Article II, Section 2 of our Constitution vests inherent powers in the president to unilaterally order armed forces into military actions. His command authority is supreme, and he may conduct campaigns and deploy operations by his own judgment.  

Short of a formal declaration of war, a president does not need prior authorization from Congress to act. That principle is embedded in our Constitution and has been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court since the early founding of our Republic.

In more modern times, the president’s authority over armed action has only expanded. Cases involving Truman, Clinton and Obama solidified presidential power to direct military operations without congressional consent. 

Trump had every legal and constitutional right to defend the United States against the transport of deadly illicit drugs and to arrest the man most responsible, who has been federally indicted for numerous crimes. 

And no, Trump did not violate the War Powers Act as some of his critics have alleged. The resolution that was passed in 1973 stipulates a reporting requirement to Congress within 48 hours of deploying forces into hostilities. It is not a prohibition to act.

Indeed, it implicitly recognizes a president’s inherent power to use military force without specific congressional approval. Every single American president has done so since the end of World War II.  Trump is no exception.  

The ‘Take Care Clause’

The president has another authority at his disposal. The ‘Take Care Clause’ in Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution mandates that the president ‘shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.’

To put it simply, Trump is duty-bound to ensure that all federal statutes are enforced. This includes the apprehension, arrest, and prosecution of wanted fugitives who are criminally charged with U.S. crimes and must be brought to justice.

Effectuating the arrest of Maduro qualifies as enforcing all laws. Just because the accused is the de facto head of state in another country does not afford him protection or immunity from the long arm of American law. That is written nowhere. 

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio described Maduro as ‘a fugitive of American justice.’ Given his armed protection, military troops were necessary to accomplish his arrest. According to Trump, the ‘operation was done in conjunction with U.S. law enforcement.’

This was also the case in 1990 under nearly identical circumstances.    

Then-President George H. W. Bush ordered the military to capture Manuel Noriega, the corrupt dictator of Panama who was indicted on drug trafficking charges and endangering U.S. citizens. After a surprise military operation in the country’s capital, he was taken into custody and spirited back to the U.S. for trial.

Noriega’s legal team of defense attorneys vigorously challenged both his arrest and America’s legal authority to try him. Those maneuvers failed, along with his various claims of immunity. He was convicted and imprisoned.

So, we’ve seen this movie before. Maduro’s lawyers will mount the same legal challenges. But if the past is prologue, there is little reason to believe that the ending will be any different.  

This leaves the rather vacant claim by Trump adversaries that his actions somehow violated the norms and customs of international law. It is a common accusation that is often lacking in substance.  

Some point to Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, which prohibits member nations from ‘the use of force against the territorial integrity’ of any state. However, the Charter provides an exception for self-defense.

As evidenced by the charges stated in Madura’s indictment, his actions as a narco-terrorist flooding the U.S. with deadly drugs fully justifies Trump’s actions as defensive in nature. Continued drug trafficking posed an imminent threat to the lives of American citizens.

If a conflict of American versus international law exists, our president’s obligations under Article II of the Constitution takes precedence and priority over Article 2 of the U.N. Charter. Members of the United Nations can complain all they want, but the U.S. has veto power in the UN Security Council.           

Most Venezuelans seem relieved that the long nightmare of tyranny, oppression and death at the hands Hugo Chavez and Nicolas Maduro is finally over. Their land is rich with the world’s largest oil reserves.

If free and fair elections are held, as they should be, the impoverished citizens of this proud nation can share in a brighter future of freedom, economic recovery and financial prosperity.

They will have President Trump to thank for that.