Democrats Challenge Trump Administration Over Venezuela Operation

WASHINGTON — Democrats in Congress are escalating demands for answers from the Trump administration following the dramatic removal of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro, arguing that the operation was not only strategically reckless but constitutionally illegal. At the center of the dispute is whether President Donald Trump violated the Constitution by ordering a large-scale military action without congressional authorization, and whether senior officials misled lawmakers and the public about the scope, purpose, and aftermath of the intervention.

The controversy intensified after a series of television interviews and social media disclosures in which administration officials offered shifting explanations for the operation. What began as a purported “law enforcement action” to execute an indictment against Maduro has, in the eyes of critics, morphed into an undeclared war with no clear endgame, no defined authority, and no coherent plan for governing a fractured country of nearly 30 million people.

“This is wildly illegal,” Senator Chris Murphy, Democrat of Connecticut and a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in a forceful interview. “You cannot invade a foreign country, seize its head of state, and destabilize an entire region without coming to Congress. The American people didn’t ask for this, and it has nothing to do with American national security.”

Murphy’s critique has become emblematic of a broader Democratic argument: that Venezuela posed no imminent threat to the United States, and that the administration’s justifications collapse under scrutiny. Venezuela, lawmakers note, is not preparing an attack on U.S. soil, does not host an Al Qaeda-style terrorist network targeting Americans, and is not a major source of fentanyl, the synthetic opioid responsible for tens of thousands of U.S. deaths each year. The country’s primary illicit export is cocaine, most of which flows to Europe, not the United States.

Instead, Democrats argue, the intervention appears driven by economic interests, particularly oil. Venezuela holds the world’s largest proven crude reserves, much of them untapped due to years of sanctions, mismanagement, and infrastructure decay. Within hours of Maduro’s removal, reports circulated on prominent U.S. political media platforms and financial news feeds that groups of Wall Street and energy investors were preparing exploratory trips to Caracas.

“Donald Trump’s foreign policy is corrupt from top to bottom,” Murphy said. “Russia, the Middle East, and now Venezuela — it’s all about making money for his friends.”

Republicans, for their part, have offered a more fragmented defense. Some, including Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas, have argued that Maduro’s removal was justified on humanitarian and regional stability grounds, pointing to celebrations among Venezuelan expatriates and in parts of South America. Others have leaned heavily on the claim that the operation was a narrow law enforcement action, not a war — a distinction that constitutional scholars say is difficult to sustain given the scale and cost of the military involvement.

For decades, Congress has ceded significant war-making authority to the executive branch, allowing presidents of both parties to conduct military operations without formal declarations of war. President Barack Obama’s 2011 intervention in Libya, undertaken without explicit congressional authorization, is frequently cited as a precedent. Democrats acknowledge this history, but argue it does not legitimize the current operation.

“Congress has to own its failure to rein in the presidency,” Murphy said. “But that doesn’t magically make this legal. There are people with arrest warrants all over the world. That doesn’t give the president the power to launch a billion-dollar invasion of any country he chooses.”

Questions about legality are compounded by uncertainty over Venezuela’s political future. Despite Maduro’s removal, power has not shifted to a clearly defined democratic authority. Delcy Rodríguez, a powerful figure closely associated with the former regime, remains central to the governing apparatus. Russia and China continue to exert influence through economic ties and diplomatic backing, raising doubts about whether U.S. objectives — whatever they may be — can realistically be achieved.

“What has actually changed?” Murphy asked. “Why would drug exports stop? Why would harassment of U.S. interests end? There’s no explanation for how this improves American security.”

The debate has also revived scrutiny of Murphy’s own record. In a 2019 op-ed, he called Maduro’s rule illegitimate and supported international pressure to restore democracy in Venezuela. Republicans have seized on that article as evidence of inconsistency. Murphy counters that his position has always opposed unilateral military regime change, warning at the time against “saber-rattling” that could lead to catastrophe.

“There are brutal dictators all over the world,” he said. “That doesn’t give an American president the right to invade their countries. We’ve seen this movie before.”

The shadow of Iraq looms large over the current debate. Supporters of the intervention emphasize the apparent tactical success of the initial operation, noting that U.S. forces achieved their immediate objective swiftly. Critics respond that military success is the easy part — and often the most misleading.

“The U.S. military is second to none,” Murphy said. “It was successful in Iraq, too. What followed was years of chaos, violence, and regional instability.”

The Trump administration’s national security strategy, released last year, emphasized economic gain as a core pillar of U.S. power. To Democrats, Venezuela represents the first full-scale test of that doctrine — and a troubling one. Securing and rebuilding Venezuela’s oil infrastructure would likely require a long-term U.S. presence, potentially involving tens of thousands of troops or contractors, at enormous cost.

President Trump has said he is “not averse” to deploying U.S. boots on the ground. Experts warn that such a move would entangle the United States in a complex internal conflict, as armed factions compete for power and control over resources. Venezuela, awash in weapons and riven by years of political polarization, is unlikely to submit quietly to foreign oversight.

Adding to the confusion are contradictory statements from senior officials. While Trump initially suggested that the United States would effectively “run” Venezuela, Secretary of State Marco Rubio later appeared to walk back that claim, saying Washington would observe developments and support a transition — language critics interpret as an admission that the administration lacks a viable plan.

In Congress, Democrats are now weighing formal responses, including hearings, subpoenas, and potential legislation to reassert war powers authority. Whether those efforts will meaningfully constrain the presidency remains uncertain. But the political stakes are clear.

“What this is really about,” Murphy said, “is whether we are a nation of laws or a nation where a president can drag us into war for profit. Venezuela may be the test case — but the consequences will reach far beyond one country.”