The Trump administration has commenced military strikes against Venezuela, employing a legal rationale that remains undisclosed to the public, which has prompted concern among legal experts about the potential overreach of presidential war powers.

In recent months, President Donald Trump has intensified military operations targeting vessels originating from Venezuela, with warnings of possible ground operations. The administration has executed a drone strike on a dockyard, further complicating the legal framework surrounding the use of force aimed at the ousting of President Nicolás Maduro.

The administration references a memo from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel to justify strikes against 35 vessels in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific. However, the memo's existence, reported by the Washington Post, has not been independently verified, and its arguments remain classified, leaving both Congress and the public without clarity on the legal basis for these actions.

A White House official asserted that all strikes on vessels occurred in international waters and complied with the Law of Armed Conflict. The official claimed that the U.S. intelligence community assessed the targeted vessels as affiliated with designated terrorist organizations involved in drug trafficking, which they argue poses a threat to American lives. However, the official did not address the legality of the strike on the dock facility within Venezuelan territory.

The administration's characterization of drug smugglers as “narcoterrorists” draws a parallel to U.S. adversaries in the War on Terror. However, unlike groups such as al Qaida, drug traffickers primarily seek financial gain rather than engaging in ideological warfare against the U.S.

Brian Finucane, a former State Department legal adviser, expressed skepticism about the U.S. being in an armed conflict with these groups, noting that some targeted entities, like the Tren de Aragua gang, lack the capacity to engage in armed conflict with the United States. He emphasized that there has been no direct attack on the U.S. from Venezuelan actors, suggesting that the administration's military approach addresses what is fundamentally a public health or law enforcement issue.

Covert CIA operations typically require notification to congressional intelligence committees, although a president can limit this notification under extraordinary circumstances. It remains unclear whether the Trump administration has adhered to this requirement.

The legal justification for the strike within Venezuela is described as ambiguous, particularly as covert actions are generally intended to remain undisclosed rather than publicly acknowledged. Matthew Waxman, a law professor at Columbia University, highlighted the complexities surrounding the legal framework for these military actions.

Despite Congress's recent repeal of the 2002 Iraq War Authorization for the Use of Military Force, this action is unlikely to significantly limit executive power, as administrations often rely on the broader 2001 AUMF targeting terrorist organizations, which is now being applied to operations in Venezuela.

Earlier this month, the House narrowly rejected a war powers resolution aimed at directing the removal of U.S. Armed Forces from hostilities against Venezuela that lack congressional authorization. In response to the CIA's drone strike, Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., characterized the actions as “illegal hostilities” and reiterated that the American public does not support another prolonged military engagement over oil.

Similar resolutions have faced challenges in the Senate, where the 60-vote threshold complicates progress. However, the recent military actions may serve as a pivotal moment in this ongoing debate.

Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., criticized the legality of the military operations, asserting that they do not address the issue of drug trafficking into the U.S., as Venezuela primarily produces cocaine destined for Europe. He described the situation as a diversionary tactic for war mongering.

The Trump administration defends its military and CIA operations, asserting that President Trump has taken significant steps to combat narcoterrorism, which they claim has led to unnecessary deaths among Americans. White House spokesperson Anna Kelly stated that all strikes have targeted designated narcoterrorists responsible for drug trafficking, emphasizing the administration's commitment to utilizing all available resources to prevent drugs from entering the U.S.