Trump attacked Venezuela and arrested its president. Is that legal?

On November 2, White House chief of staff Susie Wiles told Vanity Fair that ground attacks in Venezuela would be negatively affected. Congressional approval required. He said if Trump “authorizes action on the ground, then it would be a war, then (we) would need Congress.”

Days later, Trump administration officials told members of Congress privately: almost the same thing – That they lack legal justification to support attacks against any ground targets in Venezuela.

But just two months later, the Trump administration did what it had previously said it could not do.

Trump’s “Large-scale attack on Venezuela” and captured President Nicolás Maduro to face charges and launched this regime change effort without the approval of Congress.

(Trump claimed in November: Didn’t need congressional permission for ground operations, but this was clearly not the consensus view in the administration.)

It looks like the mission is limited to eliminating Maduro for now. But as Trump noted, this involved striking domestically; The same situation where some people in the administration previously stated that they did not have the necessary authority. CNN reported in early November that the administration had requested a new legal opinion from the Justice Department for such attacks.

And at a press conference on Saturday, Trump repeatedly talked about not just arresting Maduro, but also ruling Venezuela and seizing its oil; These comments could certainly be taken to suggest that this is about more than just arresting Maduro.

Legally dubious strikes within another country (even narrowly designed to eliminate foreign leaders) are not unheard of in recent American history. But even in this context, this is striking.

Changing the grounds

This is because the Trump administration has taken Considerably little attention is paid to providing a coherent set of justifications or a legal framework for attack. And he doesn’t even appear to have given Congress advance notice, which is usually the bare minimum in such cases.

A full explanation of the alleged motive has not yet been released, but early signs are characteristically confusing.

Republican Senator Mike Lee of Utah said shortly after the attacks that Secretary of State Marco Rubio told him the attack was necessary. In Lee’s words, “protect and defend those executing arrest warrants”Against Maduro.

“This action likely falls within the president’s inherent authority under Article II of the Constitution to protect U.S. personnel from actual or imminent attack,” said Lee, a frequent critic of unauthorized foreign military intervention.

Hours later, Vice President J.D. Vance repeated the phrase.

“And PSA for anyone saying this is ‘illegal’: Maduro has multiple indictments in the US for narcoterrorism,” Vance said. said in x. “You can’t escape justice for drug trafficking in the United States because you live in a palace in Caracas.”

At a later news conference, Rubio reiterated that he supports the military’s “law enforcement function.”

But there are many people living in other countries who have been charged in the United States; Attacking foreign countries to bring them to justice is not the usual behavior of the US government.

The administration had also not previously stated that military force could be legally used for this reason.

Initially, Trump threatened to launch ground attacks inside Venezuela to target drug traffickers; This means that Venezuela is apparently a bit small player in the drug smuggling game.

The administration then suggested that strikes might be necessary because Venezuela was sending bad people to the United States.

And then Trump, after initially downplaying the role of oil in the U.S. pressure campaign against Venezuela and Maduro, said he aimed to take back “the oil, the land, and other assets that they previously stole from us.”

The signals were so confusing that even hawkish Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina noted in mid-December that there was a “lack of clarity” in the administration’s messaging.

“I want clarity here,” Graham said. in question. “President Trump says his days are numbered. It seems to me that he needs to go. If the goal is to eliminate him because he is a threat to our country, then Like this. So what happens next? Don’t you think most people want to know that?”

Despite the focus on the law enforcement operation on Saturday, Trump said at the press conference that the United States would now at least temporarily participate in governing Venezuela. And he repeatedly mentioned her oil.

“We’re going to rebuild the oil infrastructure,” Trump said, adding at another point: “We’re going to run the country right.”

Even if the administration provided a more coherent rationale, that doesn’t mean it would be appropriate.

A controversial 1989 memo

The most recent significant example of the use of the US military for regime change is, of course, the war in Iraq. This war was authorized by Congress in 2002. A broader war against terrorism was authorized by Congress in 2001 after the September 11 attacks.

Since then, administrations have attempted, sometimes dubiously, to use these powers to legitimize various military actions in the Middle East. But Venezuela is on a completely different stage.

Although many compare the efforts in Venezuela to Iraq, the better comparison the administration plans to make is Panama in 1989.

As in Venezuela, Panama’s then-leader Manuel Noriega was under US charges, including drug trafficking. And as in Venezuela, the operation was less a large-scale war than a narrow-scale effort to remove the leader from power.

In 1980, the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel concluded that the FBI did not have the authority to capture and kidnap a foreign national to face justice. But the George HW Bush administration’s OLC quietly reversed this in the summer of 1989.

In a memo written by William P. Barr, who would later become attorney general in the Bush administration and Trump’s first administration, he wrote that a president “natural constitutional authority”Ordering the FBI to detain people in foreign countries even if it violates international law.

This memo was soon used to legitimize the operation to eliminate Noriega. (In fact, Noriega was captured the same day Maduro was captured: January 3, 1990.)

However that note It remains controversial to this day. This also means granting extraordinarily broad authority, potentially allowing US military force everywhere.

And the situation in Venezuela may differ because it is a larger country with a foreign-controlled leader that may be harder to control. It also has significant oil wealth, which means other countries may be interested in what happens there next. (China describes the attack as “blatant use of force against a sovereign state”)

Both at the press conference and in an interview on Fox News on Saturday morning, Trump reinforced that this could be more than just arresting Maduro, citing the possibility of more military options.

This also means that questions about Trump’s legal authorities could be tested again; just as Trump has already tested them with his legally dubious attacks on drug boats and other actions in the region.

What is clear is that Trump is once again trying to test the limits of his authority as president and Americans’ tolerance for it. But this time he does it in one of the biggest scenes ever. And the story of his bending the law is certainly not over.

For more CNN news and newsletters, create an account at: CNN.com