• Trump administration did not notify congressional oversight committee before launching strikes
• Lawmakers from both parties raise constitutional concerns about authorization
• Action follows months of debate over presidential war powers and Venezuela policy

WASHINGTON (TDR) — The Senate Armed Services Committee was not informed in advance of the large-scale military strikes against Venezuela that resulted in the reported capture of President Nicolás Maduro, according to sources familiar with the matter, reigniting debate over congressional war powers and executive authority.

CNN reported Saturday that the Trump administration did not commit to notifying relevant congressional committees before conducting the ground operations, despite repeated demands from lawmakers that they receive advance briefing on any such military action.

The oversight lapse comes as members of both parties questioned the constitutional basis for the strikes, which President Donald Trump announced early Saturday morning via Truth Social.

Constitutional Questions Surface

Freedom-Loving Beachwear by Red Beach Nation - Save 10% With Code RVM10

Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) initially expressed skepticism about the operation’s legal foundation, posting on X: “I look forward to learning what, if anything, might constitutionally justify this action in the absence of a declaration of war or authorization for the use of military force.”

Lee later said he spoke with Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who informed him the kinetic action was deployed to protect personnel executing Maduro’s arrest warrant. The Republican senator said this “likely falls within the president’s inherent authority under Article II of the Constitution to protect U.S. personnel from an actual or imminent attack.”

“I look forward to learning what, if anything, might constitutionally justify this action in the absence of a declaration of war or authorization for the use of military force,” Lee wrote before speaking with Rubio.

Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI), a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, warned against military involvement before the strikes occurred. He posted that the United States has “no vital national interests in Venezuela to justify war” and urged avoiding “another stupid adventure.”

Months of Congressional Pushback

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE THE DUPREE REPORT

The notification failure represents the latest friction between the Trump administration and Congress over military action in the region. In December, the House of Representatives rejected measures aimed at requiring congressional authorization before striking Venezuela or continuing attacks on suspected drug boats.

Democratic Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts, who introduced legislation prohibiting military action against Venezuela without congressional approval, said American troops deserve congressional debate before deployment into harm’s way.

The 1973 War Powers Resolution requires the president to seek approval from Congress before introducing armed forces into hostilities. The Constitution grants Congress, not the president, the authority to declare war.

White House chief of staff Susie Wiles conceded in a November interview that “activity on land” in Venezuela would need congressional authorization. However, the administration has maintained it does not need lawmaker approval for strikes on boats because vessels are mostly hit by drones far from U.S. naval forces.

Legal Justification Remains Classified

The Trump administration has cited a Department of Justice opinion to justify the strikes but has kept it classified, fueling the war powers showdown. Legal experts say the rationale appears to stretch presidential authority beyond traditional bounds.

Matthew Waxman, a Columbia Law professor specializing in constitutional war powers, told NBC News that “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.”

Congress repealed the 2002 Iraq war Authorization for the Use of Military Force in the recently signed defense spending bill. Most administrations have relied instead on the broader 2001 AUMF targeting terrorist organizations, a framework now being invoked for operations in Venezuela.

Bipartisan Investigation Launched

The Republican-led Senate and House Armed Services Committees have opened bipartisan investigations into the circumstances surrounding earlier U.S. strikes on alleged drug boats, including a controversial follow-up strike that killed survivors.

Democratic Sen. Ruben Gallego of Arizona, a Marine Corps veteran deployed in Iraq, called the Venezuela operation “illegal” and labeled it the “second unjustified war in my lifetime.”

Rep. Mike Rogers of Alabama, the Republican chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, has expressed support for operations targeting drug boats, saying Trump was acting “decisively and lawfully” within his commander-in-chief authority to combat cartels.

The administration maintains all actions comply with U.S. law, international law, and the law of armed conflict. Trump scheduled a news conference for 11 a.m. ET Saturday at Mar-a-Lago to provide additional details about the operation.

Will congressional oversight reassert itself over executive military authority, or has the balance of war powers shifted permanently?

Freedom-Loving Beachwear by Red Beach Nation - Save 10% With Code RVM10