The halls of Congress erupted in partisan conflict yesterday following the Biden administration’s surprise military operation in Venezuela. In a coordinated effort between U.S. Special Forces and precision airstrikes, Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro was captured and placed in U.S. custody. The operation, which concluded before dawn, has triggered intense debate over presidential war powers and American interventionism.
I’ve spent the morning navigating the Capitol’s tense corridors, where the atmosphere feels more divisive than at any point since the January 6th hearings. Republicans and Democrats have retreated to familiar corners, with reactions splitting along predictable fault lines.
“This is a flagrant abuse of executive power,” declared Senator James Lankford (R-OK) during an impromptu press gaggle outside the Senate chamber. “The President has once again circumvented Congress to wage war without proper authorization. The Constitution explicitly gives war powers to Congress, not the White House.”
The administration defended the operation as a necessary response to what intelligence officials described as “imminent threats to U.S. personnel and interests.” According to White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, the President exercised authority under Article II of the Constitution, which grants him power as Commander-in-Chief to protect American assets and citizens.
Democrats largely rallied behind the President. “Sometimes decisive action is required when diplomatic channels have been exhausted,” said Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA), ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee. “The Maduro regime’s ongoing human rights abuses, election fraud, and harboring of drug traffickers presented clear dangers to regional stability.”
Data from the Council on Foreign Relations indicates that Venezuelan government forces have been implicated in over 18,000 extrajudicial killings since 2016. The country’s economic collapse has forced nearly 7.1 million Venezuelans to flee their homeland, creating what the UN calls one of the largest displacement crises in the world.
I spoke with Dr. Rebecca Sanders, Director of Latin American Studies at Georgetown University, who offered historical context. “This marks the most significant U.S. military intervention in South America since the 1989 invasion of Panama to remove Manuel Noriega,” she noted. “The parallels are striking, though the geopolitical landscape is considerably more complex today with Russian and Chinese interests deeply embedded in Venezuela.”
The timing of the operation—just three months before midterm elections—has amplified accusations of political motivations. A recent Gallup poll showed the President’s approval rating at 38%, with foreign policy approval even lower at 32%.
Republican leadership announced plans to convene emergency hearings on what Senator Marco Rubio called “a dangerous precedent of executive overreach.” The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has scheduled testimony from Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin for next week.
I’ve covered Washington for nearly two decades, and what stands out about this moment is how quickly both parties abandoned nuance. Having reported on the Venezuela crisis since its beginnings, I’ve watched American policy swing between aggressive sanctions and cautious engagement. Yesterday’s operation represents a dramatic departure from this pattern.
The legal justification relies on the somewhat dubious interpretation of the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), originally passed to target those responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Administration officials have suggested tenuous links between Venezuelan officials and terrorist organizations, a connection that many legal scholars find insufficient.
“The AUMF was never intended as a blank check for military action anywhere in the world,” explained constitutional law expert Jonathan Turley in our phone conversation this morning. “Its continued use, twenty-four years after 9/11, to justify unrelated military operations represents a troubling expansion of executive authority.”
Human rights organizations have issued mixed responses. Amnesty International acknowledged Maduro’s brutal record while expressing concern about the “dangerous precedent of forcible regime change without international consensus.” The Organization of American States called for an emergency session to address the situation.
Markets reacted swiftly, with Venezuelan bonds surging 27% on speculation that a new government might honor debt obligations. Oil prices dropped 4.8% on expectations that Venezuelan production might soon return to global markets under new leadership.
For ordinary Venezuelans, reactions appear divided. Social media analysis shows celebration in opposition strongholds but anger in areas loyal to Maduro. Internet access has been severely restricted since the operation, making comprehensive assessment difficult.
As I file this report from my office overlooking Pennsylvania Avenue, demonstrations are forming near the White House. Both pro-administration supporters and anti-war protesters are gathering in growing numbers.
What remains unclear is the administration’s endgame. While officials have spoken vaguely about “supporting democratic transition,” no specific plans for Venezuela’s governance have been articulated. The power vacuum created by Maduro’s removal presents significant risks of instability or civil conflict.
The coming days will test not only the administration’s strategic planning but also America’s constitutional boundaries. The debate over presidential war powers has simmered for decades. Yesterday’s events may finally force a reckoning with questions that have remained unresolved since Vietnam.
As one senior Democratic aide told me, speaking on condition of anonymity, “We’re in uncharted waters now. Nobody knows if this will be remembered as a foreign policy triumph or a constitutional crisis.”
For now, as Congress debates and protesters march, Venezuela’s future—and America’s role in shaping it—remains uncertain.
