House subcommittee hears sharply divided legal views on U.S. operation that captured Nicolás Maduro

WASHINGTON — A House Judiciary subcommittee on oversight spent hours Tuesday debating whether the United States lawfully used military force to help execute an arrest warrant for Nicolás Maduro and to strike vessels it called instruments of narco‑terror networks.

Chairman Van Drew opened the hearing by describing the January operation that removed Maduro from a fortified compound as “a law enforcement operation to apprehend indicted fugitives” and said Article II of the Constitution and decades of executive practice supported the action. “When American law enforcement could not safely breach a fortified compound,” he said, the president had authority to “deploy military force to support the arrest operation.”

That claim was sharply contested. Ranking Member Miss Crockett called the operation an unlawful invasion and said it had caused substantial civilian deaths, saying, “there were at least 40 civilians killed in this operation” and “a total of 83 persons that were killed during this invasion.” Mr. Raskin described recent boat strikes as “murder, plain and simple,” and pressed witnesses on whether the administration had supplied a plausible domestic or international legal justification.

The committee heard competing legal frameworks from expert witnesses. Professor Josh Blackman, introduced as holding the Centennial Chair of Constitutional Law at South Texas College of Law, said the operation must be understood as the end point of many prior steps — grand jury indictments, FTO designations and executive proclamations — and urged Congress to use oversight to examine the classified legal opinions that informed the decisions. “These matters fall to the political branches, the Congress and the president,” he said, adding that the Office of Legal Counsel had produced a 22‑page opinion concluding the president may lawfully order military personnel to assist law enforcement.

By contrast, Thomas Patton, the former acting director of the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force, warned that recent maritime strikes and the dismantling of long‑standing task force capabilities had undermined the country’s ability to build criminal prosecutions. “Sinking those boats has no effect on the U.S. drug supply,” Patton testified, arguing that destroying vessels and killing crew robs investigators of evidence and potential witnesses needed to indict higher‑level operators.

Witnesses also differed over international‑law implications. Gina DeAndrea, general counsel at the America First Policy Institute, cited historical precedent — including the Noriega arrest — and argued that FTO designations and the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act broadened executive authority to act against vessels that serve as instrumentalities of narco‑terrorism. Others in the room said treaty obligations and the U.N. Charter’s prohibition on the use of force demanded clearer congressional or international backing.

The hearing produced no legal consensus. Members on both sides entered a wide range of documents into the record — indictments, OLC opinions, Treasury sanctions notices and media accounts — and gave the witnesses five legislative days to submit follow-up materials. The committee adjourned with no vote and with members sharply divided over whether the operation was a defensible exercise of executive power or an unlawful use of force.