Secretary of State Marco Rubio insisted Sunday there is "not a war" with Venezuela despite the stunning U.S. raid that captured Nicolás Maduro and President Trump's announcement that America will "run" the country.
- Rubio said the U.S. was instead "at war against drug trafficking organizations."
Why it matters: By framing Saturday's operation as law enforcement, not war, the administration argues it doesn't need Congress' permission to bomb a military base and capture a head of state.
- The distinction, which some legal scholars dispute, determines what legal constraints apply, including the War Powers Resolution and the Geneva Conventions, which might protect Maduro as a prisoner of war.
- President Trump has threatened a second strike, and administration officials have suggested the campaign may not stop in Venezuela.
The big picture: The overnight raid followed months of U.S. strikes on alleged "narco-terrorists" that killed dozens, along with seizures of vessels carrying Venezuelan oil.
- The administration previously said the U.S. is engaged in "armed conflict" with drug cartels, per multiple reports.
- A Venezuelan source told The New York Times at least 80 people were killed, including security personnel and civilians.
- There are currently no U.S. forces on the ground in Venezuela, Rubio said Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press." But he stressed that Trump retains the option to deploy troops.
Friction point: Critics cited White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles' comments to Vanity Fair last year that land strikes in Venezuela would require congressional approval.
- But Rubio countered to NBC's Kristen Welker, "this was not an attack on Venezuela. This was a law enforcement function to capture an indicted drug trafficker."
- Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) defended the action, saying it "likely falls within the president's" constitutional authority.
Yes, but: Legal scholars at national security journal Just Security argue the U.S. triggered an international armed conflict, meaning wartime rules now apply whether the White House likes it or not.
- That includes Geneva Convention protections — possibly impacting detention standards and U.S. immigration policy, the writers note — including for Venezuelans in the U.S. and Americans in Venezuela.
- It also means Venezuela could legally target U.S. forces, write Michael Schmitt, Tess Bridgeman and Ryan Goodman.
Between the lines: Brian Finucane of the International Crisis Group, a nonprofit focused on conflicts, tells Axios he thinks the administration's argument is "absurd."
- He explained, "There may have been some DEA agents tagging along for the ride, but that doesn't change the fundamental fact that it's a use of force under international law, and ... it implicates Congress' war powers."
The White House directed Axios to Rubio's Washington Post interview, where he said he promised lawmakers to get congressional approval only if the U.S. "was going to conduct military strikes for military purposes."
- Rubio told The Post, "This was not that. This was a law enforcement operation."
- But Georgetown law professor Steve Vladeck warns this logic doesn't stop with Venezuela. If the Constitution allows military force anytime a U.S. court indicts someone outside the U.S., "that could become a pretext for the United States to use military force almost anywhere."
Flashback: Harvard Law professor Jack Goldsmith, who served in the George W. Bush administration, writes that the closest precedent would be the 1989-1990 U.S. invasion and seizure of Manuel Noriega from Panama.
- Goldsmith points to a controversial opinion penned by then-Assistant Attorney General Bill Barr that argued the FBI could arrest suspects abroad even if it violated international law.
- Goldsmith writes it would not be "terribly hard" for the DOJ to write an opinion supporting the invasion, but he adds, "that does not mean that the action is in fact lawful—and it pretty clearly isn't under the U.N. Charter."
What we're watching: Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) said Saturday his bipartisan resolution blocking blocking U.S. military action in Venezuela without congressional approval could get a vote in days.
- The 1973 War Powers Resolution mandates the president to consult with Congress before using military force "in every possible instance" and to report to lawmakers within 48 hours of deploying forces. The president must terminate the use of the military within 60 days unless Congress approves or extends it.
- Trump suggested that Congress was not alerted ahead of time because the Hill has "a tendency to leak" — and "we don't want leakers."
- Administration officials plan to brief lawmakers Monday evening, per multiple reports. If the operation expands, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told "CBS Evening News" anchor Tony Dokoupil Saturday, "we will keep Congress involved."
Go deeper: Rubio touts U.S. refineries' ability to process Venezuela's oil
