The Trump administration’s sudden capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and declaration that it will “run” the country has sparked intense debate over the legality and implications of U.S. intervention in the South American nation.

In a middle-of-the-night operation that shook Caracas with explosions, U.S. forces seized Maduro and his wife, transporting them on a U.S. warship to face narco-terrorism conspiracy charges in New York. Legal experts describe this action as unprecedented, even compared to previous U.S. interventions in countries like Panama and Iraq.

“This is clearly a blatant, illegal and criminal act,” said Jimmy Gurule, a Notre Dame Law School professor and former assistant U.S. attorney.

The capture represents the culmination of months of escalating U.S. military operations in the region. Since September, the Trump administration has conducted 35 known boat strikes against vessels allegedly involved in drug trafficking, resulting in more than 115 deaths. The U.S. has also seized oil tankers off Venezuela’s coast and positioned an armada of warships in nearby waters.

John Yoo, who helped shape the Bush administration’s Iraq policy and now teaches law at UC Berkeley, suggests that while removing Maduro might seem straightforward, the real challenge lies ahead: “It’s easier to remove a dictator. The harder part is ensuring the transition to a stable democratic government.”

Maduro’s arrest coincidentally occurred on the 36th anniversary of Manuel Noriega’s surrender in Panama. The U.S. invaded Panama in 1989 to arrest Noriega on drug trafficking charges, but that operation was justified by direct U.S. interests in the Panama Canal and the safety of American citizens and military installations there.

Unlike the Panama intervention, Congress has not authorized any military strike or law enforcement action against Venezuela. This raises serious constitutional questions about presidential authority.

“The President will claim that this fits within a vast body of precedent supporting broad executive power to defend the United States, its citizens, and its interests,” said Matthew Waxman, a Columbia University law professor and former Bush administration national security official. “Critics will charge that this exceeds the bounds of presidential power without congressional authorization.”

While U.S. courts have historically given presidents wide latitude in foreign policy and national security matters, Gurule emphasized that “great deference does not mean absolute deference and unfettered authority to do anything.”

The administration has taken the extraordinary step of declaring drug cartels operating from Venezuela to be “unlawful combatants” and stating that the United States is in an “armed conflict” with them, according to an administration memo obtained by The Associated Press in October. This effectively declares that drug trafficking into the U.S. constitutes armed conflict requiring military force – a novel justification for intervention.

Congress, despite its constitutional authority to approve or prohibit presidential war powers, has neither explicitly authorized nor banned these actions. This inaction continues even as lawmakers from both parties have expressed growing concern, particularly after revelations that U.S. forces killed two survivors of a boat attack in a follow-up strike.

Democratic leaders Senator Chuck Schumer and Representative Hakeem Jeffries have demanded immediate briefings for congressional leadership. “The idea that Trump plans to now run Venezuela should strike fear in the hearts of all Americans,” Schumer warned. “The American people have seen this before and paid the devastating price.”

Michael Schmitt, former Air Force lawyer and professor emeritus at the U.S. Naval War College, was unequivocal: “The entire operation – the boat strikes as well as the apprehension of Maduro – clearly violates international law.” He added, “Lawyers call it international armed conflict. Lay people call it war.”

Republican lawmakers have largely welcomed Maduro’s capture, framing it as removing a leader responsible for drug trafficking. Democrats, however, warn that abandoning the rule of law could embolden countries like China or Russia to take similar actions.

Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, questioned the precedent being set. He noted similarities to the Iraq War in the administration’s promises to use Venezuela’s oil revenue to pay for the operation and subsequent governing costs.

The Senate is expected to vote next week on a bipartisan war powers resolution that would block using U.S. forces against Venezuela without congressional authorization.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio defended the administration’s decision not to brief lawmakers in advance, citing the surprise nature of the operation. Senate Majority Leader John Thune expressed gratitude to the armed forces while indicating he expects further briefings when the Senate reconvenes.