Exploring the Legality Questions About Venezuela Military Strike

Several Democrats have claimed that the Trump administration’s Jan. 3 military operation that led to the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, was “illegal,” violating both domestic and international law.

Experts we consulted told us that the operation runs afoul of the United Nations Charter that prohibits unjustified uses of military force by one country against another. Experts also previously told us that the U.S. Constitution, according to an originalist interpretation, requires congressional approval for such use of force abroad. In practice, however, multiple presidents — like President Donald Trump in this instance — have unilaterally ordered military action without input from lawmakers.

In this story, we’ll review some of the legal arguments that have been made.

International Law

Several Democrats have claimed that the Trump administration’s military actions in Venezuela violated international law.

“It’s clearly illegal under international law, right?” Rep. Jim Himes, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said on CBS’ “Face the Nation” on Jan. 4. “Full stop. U.N. charter. No question there.”

In an interview on CNN on Jan. 5, Rep. Adam Smith, the ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, called the military action “blatantly illegal.”

MARAD Takes Over Deepwater Port Environmental Reviews, Reshaping U.S. Energy and Maritime Security Oversight

Shift from Coast Guard aims to speed licensing, cut energy costs, and advance Trump administration energy goals—while critics warn of lost regulatory expertise

The Maritime Administration (MARAD) has formally assumed responsibility for environmental oversight of U.S. deepwater port licensing, taking over National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review duties previously led by the U.S. Coast Guard. Federal officials say the move will streamline environmental reviews, accelerate project approvals, and reduce domestic energy costs—while critics argue it risks weakening regulatory rigor at a time of expanding offshore energy development.

The change, announced Monday, was mandated by Congress in the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2025. Under the new framework, MARAD will serve as the lead federal agency for NEPA and environmental compliance reviews, while the Coast Guard will retain authority over safety, design, construction, and operational oversight of deepwater port facilities.

MARAD, the Coast Guard, and the Department of Transportation said the shift is designed to align federal permitting with President Donald Trump’s executive order on “Unleashing American Energy,” which seeks to remove regulatory bottlenecks slowing domestic oil and gas infrastructure.

ICE Hiring Surge Sparks Capitol Hill Scrutiny Over Training Standards and Readiness

Lawmakers question whether a rapid expansion—adding 12,000 officers in months—compromised vetting, training, and oversight as enforcement operations accelerate nationwide

A rapid hiring blitz at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has triggered bipartisan concern on Capitol Hill, with lawmakers pressing the agency to explain whether training and suitability standards were lowered to meet aggressive recruitment targets tied to expanded immigration enforcement goals.

Under the authority of the Department of Homeland Security, ICE announced Jan. 3 that it had expanded its workforce by roughly 120%, growing from about 10,000 to more than 22,000 personnel after adding approximately 12,000 officers and agents in less than a year. DHS officials said the bulk of that growth occurred in roughly four months, following a nationwide campaign that drew more than 220,000 applications.

The expansion is intended to support stepped-up enforcement objectives, including carrying out up to 1 million deportations annually, as newly hired officers deploy across the country to conduct arrests, investigations, detention operations, and removals.

Training Standards Under Fire

Oversight concerns intensified soon after the hiring surge was announced. Lawmakers on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee are questioning whether speed came at the expense of rigor—particularly for front-line roles that carry significant legal, operational, and public-safety responsibilities.

A senior committee aide said Gary Peters, the panel’s ranking member, is seeking clarity on how ICE vetted, trained, and onboarded roughly 12,000 new personnel in such a compressed timeframe.

According to the aide, the senator is concerned that ICE reduced training requirements to meet hiring targets and has not been transparent about how recruits were selected for abbreviated pipelines or how those changes were evaluated internally. Requests for briefings on the revised standards, the aide said, have gone unanswered for months.

Trump Administration Sued Over Offshore Project Allegedly Threatening Power Supply for 500,000 New Yorkers

Lawsuit raises national security, grid resilience, and federal permitting questions as critics warn of cascading risks to coastal infrastructure and military-adjacent energy systems

A new federal lawsuit targeting the Donald Trump administration is intensifying scrutiny over how offshore infrastructure decisions intersect with energy security, grid resilience, and national defense readiness—particularly in densely populated coastal regions.

Filed on behalf of state and local stakeholders, the suit alleges that a federally approved offshore project could disrupt electricity transmission serving approximately 500,000 New Yorkers, potentially exposing vulnerabilities in a region already considered critical to U.S. economic and security interests. While the project’s developers argue that safeguards are in place, plaintiffs contend the administration failed to adequately assess grid stability risks and downstream impacts under federal environmental and energy statutes.

Why Black Lives Matter Protests and Jan. 6 Are Not the Same—and Why the Distinction Matters

Equating racial justice demonstrations with the Capitol insurrection distorts history, law, and democratic accountability

In the years since mass demonstrations swept U.S. cities following the killing of George Floyd, a persistent political argument has taken hold: that protests associated with Black Lives Matter are morally and legally comparable to the events of Jan. 6, 2021.

The comparison is not merely flawed—it is deeply misleading.

A careful examination of intent, scale, organization, targets, and legal outcomes shows a sharp and consequential difference between the Black Lives Matter protests of 2020 and the January 6 United States Capitol attack. Treating them as equivalent obscures the nature of political violence, undermines democratic norms, and weakens public trust in institutions designed to protect both free expression and constitutional order.

After Venezuela Operation, Trump Signals the Entire Hemisphere Is in Play

Brash warnings toward Cuba, Colombia, and Mexico raise fears that Maduro’s ouster marks the opening salvo of a broader U.S. campaign across Latin America

In the wake of the U.S. operation that captured Venezuelan strongman Nicolás Maduro, President Donald Trump and his top advisers are making clear that Caracas may be only the beginning.

As Trump declared Saturday that the United States would “run” Venezuela for now, administration officials coupled the announcement with blunt warnings aimed well beyond the country’s borders—stoking anxiety across the Western Hemisphere and triggering diplomatic backlash from regional capitals.

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth underscored the administration’s posture with unusually stark language, saying Maduro “had a chance” to leave before becoming the latest example of a leader who failed to respond to Trump’s pressure. “He effed around, and he found out,” Hegseth said.

The message was not confined to Venezuela. Trump and his team pointedly referenced Colombia, Cuba, and Mexico as potential next pressure points—remarks that regional leaders interpreted as a warning shot to the entire hemisphere.

Regional backlash builds

Governments across Latin America moved quickly to condemn the operation and caution against further U.S. action. Cuba’s government warned that “all nations of the region must remain alert,” calling the strike a threat to hemispheric stability.

Colombian President Gustavo Petro labeled the attack an aggression against South America and announced the mobilization of troops along Colombia’s border with Venezuela to prepare for potential refugee flows.

What a Former Trump Official Is Watching Closely in Venezuela

Carrie Filipetti warns that the aftermath of Maduro’s capture—not the strike itself—will determine whether Venezuela stabilizes or spirals

In the days since U.S. forces captured Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro and transferred him to U.S. custody, a new and far more consequential debate has taken hold in Washington: not whether the operation succeeded, but what comes next—and who, if anyone, should run Venezuela in the interim.

For Carrie Filipetti, a former senior State Department official in the first Trump administration, the most significant risks now lie not in military escalation but in political missteps that could undercut Venezuela’s democratic opposition, fracture U.S. support at home, and pull Washington into an open-ended governance role abroad.

In an interview with 'TELL IT LIKE IT IS' Magazine, Filipetti—now executive director of the Vandenberg Coalition—outlined what she would be most worried about if she were still inside the State Department advising President Donald Trump.