(The Center Square) – The arrest of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro has triggered a constitutional debate over executive power, dividing constitutional attorney David Shestokas and congressional Democratic candidate Kat Abughazaleh.
Shestokas argues the operation fits squarely within long-standing legal precedent and presidential authority.
“The closest precedent we have is Manuel Noriega in Panama,” Shestokas said, referencing the 1989 U.S. military operation ordered by President George H.W. Bush that resulted in the arrest and later conviction of Panama’s leader in U.S. court. “He was indicted in a United States court, the Army went in, picked him up, and he stood trial.”
Abughazaleh disagrees in a video posted on social media, warning the action risks repeating past foreign policy mistakes.
“The president of the United States is about to drag us into another forever war without congressional approval,” Abughazaleh said in the video.
Shestokas emphasized that unlike the Noriega operation, the Maduro arrest was carried out primarily by federal law enforcement, not the U.S. military.
“This was not the Army grabbing someone,” Shestoaks told TCS. “Maduro was taken into custody by the FBI and DEA executing an arrest warrant issued by the Southern District of New York. The military assisted, but this was treated more like an extradition than a military action.”
Abughazaleh provided TCS with a statement saying, “Invoking the Noriega case doesn’t justify what Trump did. Even at the time, the Noriega arrest was widely condemned by international bodies as a violation of sovereignty.”
Abughazaleh told TCS if the administration believed there was a genuine national security threat, the Constitution is clear – the president must come to Congress.
“Trump didn’t. Instead, he relied on unsubstantiated claims his own Justice Department now admits lack factual grounding, like Maduro being the head of the fictional ‘Cartel of the Suns,"” said Abughazaleh.
Abughazaleh said this was an unnecessary, unilateral act of war undertaken without congressional authorization, in violation of the War Powers Resolution and Article I.
Shestokas countered that the president’s authority to deploy military assistance in support of federal law enforcement abroad is firmly grounded in Article II of the Constitution and reinforced by statutes enacted by Congress.
“There is no reason to believe the president lacks authority to utilize the military to assist federal law enforcement, particularly outside the United States,” Shestokas said. “This is not only constitutional, it’s exactly how the law is written.”
Abughazaleh warned that procedural compliance should not replace congressional oversight, drawing parallels to the lead-up to the Iraq War.
“I’m equally scared Congress is just going to play along like they did in 2003,” she said. “We’re told you don’t want to be pro-drug trafficking, right? Even if we’ve been given zero proof for the claims?”
Shestokas rejected claims that the arrest was unilateral or politically driven, emphasizing the role of the judicial system and private citizens in initiating the case.
“This did not start with the president,” he said. “Twenty-three regular citizens on a grand jury in the Southern District of New York found probable cause to indict Maduro and others. The president was enforcing a grand jury’s decision.”
Abughazaleh called for impeachment proceedings, arguing the president exceeded constitutional limits.
Shestokas disputed the characterization of the operation as a declaration of war, noting that the charges center on large-scale drug trafficking and money laundering.
Abughazaleh said she would have voted for the War Powers Resolution legislation to block Trump’s escalating hostilities toward Venezuela.
###
