The Trump administration has launched strikes against Venezuela using a legal justification it refuses to make public, alarming legal experts who say the rationale appears to stretch presidential war powers.
For months, President Donald Trump has escalated military strikes targeting boats emanating from Venezuela and warned of potential ground operations in the country. Now, his administration appears to be following through on those threats, launching a drone strike on a dockyard and raising questions about the legal basis for the use of force aimed at ousting President Nicolás Maduro.
The administration has cited a Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel memo to justify strikes against 35 vessels in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific. But the memo — whose existence has been reported by the Washington Post, but not independently verified by MS NOW — and its arguments remain classified, leaving Congress and the public without clarity about the administration’s legal reasoning.
A White House official insisted to MS NOW that all boat strikes have been conducted in international waters and in full compliance with the Law of Armed Conflict. “In each case, the vessel was assessed by the U.S. intelligence community to be affiliated with a designated terrorist organization engaged at that time in trafficking illicit drugs, which could ultimately be used to kill Americans,” the official said. They did not address the strike on the dock facility, which took place in Venezuelan territory.
The administration uses the term “narcoterrorists” to refer to drug smugglers targeted in the strikes, and in doing so, implicitly likens them to U.S. adversaries in the War on Terror. But unlike a group such as al Qaida, drug smugglers are not driven by a religious, ideological or political goal; their aim is to make money rather than wage war with the U.S.
“It seems very hard to believe that the U.S. is actually engaged in armed conflict with these unspecified groups,” said Brian Finucane, a former State Department legal adviser who focused on the use of military force. He noted that some groups allegedly targeted, including the Tren de Aragua gang, “aren’t capable of being in an armed conflict with the United States.”
Unlike the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that prompted the authorization for the use of military force against terrorist groups, there has been no physical attack on the U.S. by Venezuelan actors. “The administration claims to be trying to address what is essentially a public health or law enforcement problem with military tools,” Finucane said.
Even covert CIA operations require notification to the House and Senate Intelligence committees, though under “extraordinary circumstances” a president can limit notification to senior congressional leadership. It is unclear whether the Trump administration has done so.
“The legal basis for the strike inside Venezuela is very murky, including because covert action is used when the U.S. government intends to keep its hand hidden, not boast about it publicly,” said Matthew Waxman, a Columbia Law professor specializing in constitutional war powers.
Though Congress repealed the 2002 Iraq war Authorization for the Use of Military Force in the recently signed defense spending bill, the repeal is unlikely to constrain executive power significantly. Most administrations have relied instead on the broader 2001 AUMF targeting terrorist organizations — a framework now being invoked for operations in Venezuela.
Earlier this month, the House narrowly rejected a war powers resolution that would have directed “the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities within or against Venezuela that have not been authorized by Congress.” In response to the CIA’s drone strike on the Venezuelan dockyard, Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., the bill’s sponsor, described the actions as “illegal hostilities” and reiterated his view that the “American People don’t want another endless war over oil.” Similar resolutions have stalled in the Senate, where the 60-vote threshold will face an even steeper climb — but the latest land action could be a tipping point. “The illegality of Trump’s insane war in Venezuela is out of control,” Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., who sits on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, posted on X on Dec. 30. “Remember, this has NOTHING to do with stopping drugs from entering America. Venezuela produces cocaine bound for Europe. This is war mongering distraction.” The Trump administration stands by its military and CIA actions, both at sea and on land. “On the campaign trail, President Trump promised to take on the cartels — and he has taken unprecedented action to stop the scourge of narcoterrorism that has resulted in the needless deaths of innocent Americans,” White House spokesperson Anna Kelly told MS NOW. “All of these decisive strikes have been against designated narcoterrorists bringing deadly poison to our shores, and the president will continue to use every element of American power to stop drugs from flooding into our country.”
Julia Jester covers politics for MS NOW and is based in Washington, D.C. Recommended
