By Joshua Arnold

The Trump administration’s sudden capture of Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro caught many Americans by surprise, giving Democrats a leg up in the subsequent messaging war. Democratic leaders in Congress asserted that the operation was executive overreach, an act of war, and the beginning of another foolish attempt at nation-building. In a Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted on Sunday and Monday, only 11% of Democrats, 23% of Independents, and 65% of Republicans approved of the overseas military operation.

But this lack of support is likely due in large part to Americans’ unfamiliarity with such a display of total military dominance — something rarely implemented in this century. Its execution left many Americans wondering: what was the justification? Are there any precedents? Does the Constitution allow this? And, perhaps most of all, are we now at war with Venezuela?

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio answered the first and last questions during a Sunday interview on NBC. “This was, at essence, at its core, a law enforcement function,” he stated. “There’s not a war. I mean, we are at war against drug trafficking organizations and not at war against Venezuela. We are enforcing American laws.”

The Trump administration contends that they arrested Maduro on the basis of an outstanding warrant, issued by a U.S. federal court. Based on reports from his Monday court appearance, “it sounds like a criminal enterprise: they were working with the cartels, running drugs, weapons,” assessed Family Research Council President Tony Perkins on “Washington Watch.” “He was using the country as a launching pad for criminal activity that was affecting the United States.”

This criminal indictment for drug trafficking establishes a connection to a precedent. In 1989, President George H.W. Bush authorized a military invasion of Panama to capture General Manuel Noriega, the country’s de facto leader, for his connection to the Medellin cartel.

“This is exactly the same scenario,” argued retired Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin, an original member of the U.S. Army Delta Force that helped capture Noriega, and now executive vice president of FRC. “You had a guy that was pushing drugs into America, and nobody had done anything to try and stop him. … Those people are killing Americans. And our president’s first duty to the people is to protect the nation.”

“What prompted George H.W. Bush to finally pull the trigger on that,” Boykin explained, “was that Noriega’s thugs down there killed an American naval officer and, and in some ways brutalized his wife.” Maduro had not taken so bold a step, but his regime had detained at least five Americans in recent months.

The circumstances for the two episodes are not identical. For one thing, “the U.S. already had a military in Panama. We were still controlling the Panama Canal at the time,” listed Richard Gregorie, a DOJ veteran of four decades who indicted Noriega and also investigated corruption inside the Maduro regime, on “Washington Watch.”

“Secondly,” Gregorie continued, “Noriega was the military head in Panama … he was never made the head of the government. The U.S. did not recognize him as the head of state.” Whether Maduro is considered the head of state for Venezuela is a relevant legal question because active heads of state are immune from prosecution for actions taken in the course of their official duties.

However, that second distinction may not actually be a difference, as the Trump administration contends that the U.S. did not recognize Maduro as the legitimate head of state for Venezuela. “Determining who is the head of state is a diplomatic question, which is handled by the executive branch of government and not the legislative branch of government,” said Gregorie. “So, technically, when our secretary of state and our president say you are not a head of state … then Mr. Maduro was not a head of state and not entitled to head of state immunity.”

The un-recognition of Maduro is not some squirrely move made by the Trump administration to evade their legal obligations, as some might choose to argue. Rather, it is consistent with the policy pursued by the Biden administration, after the opposition collected conclusive evidence that Maduro had himself fraudulently declared the winner of the 2024 election.

Ten days before President Trump re-assumed the office of president, Biden administration Secretary of State Antony Blinken wrote:

“Today, Nicolás Maduro held an illegitimate presidential inauguration in Venezuela in a desperate attempt to seize power. The Venezuelan people and world know the truth — Maduro clearly lost the 2024 presidential election and has no right to claim the presidency. The United States rejects the National Electoral Council’s fraudulent announcement that Maduro won the presidential election and does not recognize Nicolás Maduro as the president of Venezuela. President-elect Edmundo González Urrutia should be sworn in, and the democratic transition should begin.”

Blinken also announced that the Biden administration was raising the bounty on Maduro to a sizable $25 million, while imposing additional “visa restrictions on Maduro-aligned individuals for their roles in undermining the electoral process.”

The other main question Americans want answered is whether Maduro’s capture was constitutional. Since the U.S. Constitution invests the power to declare war in the Congress, and Congress has not authorized a war against Venezuela, the question remains whether the Maduro raid constituted an act of war.

“If we’re going to declare war or take some serious military action, Congress should be informed and there should be some congressional action taken,” Gregorie contended. He did not hazard an answer to that important question. Instead, he predicted, “This is a question that will start with the district court in New York and will work its way up, I’m sure, all the way to the Supreme Court.”

Notably, the lack of constitutional authorization is another parallel Maduro’s capture shares with Noriega’s capture. The 1989 Panama invasion lacked congressional authority, too. That did not stop the U.S. judicial system from convicting Noriega, who served a 20-year prison sentence before being extradited to France.

What is true is that hours-long Maduro raid presents a favorable contrast with America’s pursuit of Noriega. Even with twice the military presence, it took the U.S. weeks to capture Noriega, after a military campaign in which 23 American soldiers were killed, besides 500 Panamanians. In the Maduro raid, the U.S. did not suffer a single fatality; the only reported deaths were those of Maduro’s bodyguard, largely comprised of Cuban mercenaries.

While American courts sort out the legal issues at play, that display of power sends a message sure to chill any dictator’s spine.

Joshua Arnold is a senior writer at The Washington Stand.