U.S. Military Operations in Venezuela and Iran Spark Constitutional Crisis

The United States has recently undertaken significant military and law enforcement operations in both Venezuela and Iran, leading to varied reactions from the international community and extensive debate within the U.S. Congress regarding presidential authority and constitutional war powers. These actions included the apprehension of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and a joint U.S.-Israeli military campaign against Iran, which reportedly resulted in the death of Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Congressional efforts to limit the President's ability to engage in military action without legislative approval have repeatedly failed in both the House and Senate.

Operations in Venezuela

Call for Airspace Closure and Venezuelan Reaction

In response to a call by former U.S. President Donald Trump on February 28 to close Venezuelan airspace, the Venezuelan government issued a statement condemning the comments as a violation of international law, a "colonialist threat" to its sovereignty, and an explicit use of force prohibited by the U.N. Charter. Flightradar24 data indicated that air traffic continued within Venezuelan airspace following Trump's statement.

"Operation Southern Spear" / "Operation Absolute Resolve"

Concurrently, the U.S. military conducted "Operation Southern Spear," described by the Trump administration as an effort to combat drug trafficking. This campaign, also referred to as "Operation Absolute Resolve," involved at least 21 strikes resulting in the deaths of at least 82 individuals on alleged drug boats, according to reports confirmed by The Washington Post and NPR. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reportedly ordered the elimination of all crew members on a boat suspected of drug smuggling in the Caribbean in September. This directive led the Senate and House Armed Services committees to announce investigations into the Pentagon's actions.

Apprehension of President Maduro

The U.S. operation culminated in the apprehension of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores. Both individuals were reportedly transported by a U.S. Navy vessel to New York to face charges related to drug trafficking, arms, and conspiracy. President Trump stated that the U.S. would oversee Venezuela's transition until a "safe, proper and judicious" process could be established.

Following the apprehension of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, President Trump stated the U.S. would oversee Venezuela's transition until a "safe, proper and judicious" process could be established.

Administration's Justification

Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated that congressional leadership was briefed after the operation commenced, citing operational security concerns and Congress's "tendency to leak." Rubio later clarified that the U.S. was not engaged in a war with Venezuela, and no U.S. troops were on the ground. He characterized the mission as a law enforcement action, with the U.S. military assisting the Coast Guard in enforcing sanctions and capturing Maduro. U.S. policy in Venezuela, he noted, also involved financial influence on Maduro's allies and an "oil quarantine" enforced by naval vessels. Maduro was scheduled to appear before a New York judge.

Operations in Iran: "Operation Epic Fury"

Launch and Initial Impacts

On February 28, the United States and Israel launched "Operation Epic Fury," a major military operation against Iran. U.S. and Israeli officials reported that Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was presumed dead following this mission. These strikes followed weeks of threats from President Trump regarding Iran's nuclear program and its actions concerning January protests. Previously, the U.S. had conducted airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities.

Retaliation and Casualties

In response to "Operation Epic Fury," Israel's military reported multiple Iranian missile launches targeting its territory, and at least two major U.S. military bases in the region were reportedly targeted by Iranian missiles. The conflict has led to significant casualties, including six U.S. military service members killed, over 1,300 Iranian fatalities, hundreds of civilian deaths in Lebanon, and 15 deaths in Israel. Israeli strikes also targeted Iranian leadership, reportedly killing Intelligence Minister Esmail Khatib, security chief Ali Larijani, and Basij paramilitary commander Gholamreza Soleimani. Iran's new supreme leader, Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei, issued a statement following Larijani's assassination.

"Operation Epic Fury" led to significant casualties, including the reported death of Iran's Supreme Leader and other key Iranian officials, and retaliatory missile strikes on U.S. bases and Israeli territory.

Global Ramifications

The conflict also impacted global energy infrastructure, disrupting oil and gas production, stalling shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, and triggering a global oil shortage. The U.S. and Israel conducted a coordinated attack on the South Pars natural gas field, drawing condemnation from Qatar, which shares the reservoir. This attack significantly impacted Iran's electricity supply. Humanitarian concerns arose, with over 1 million people displaced in Lebanon. Internationally, Russia condemned the strikes and called for an immediate ceasefire, while European leaders expressed alarm. NATO allies refused President Trump's request to send warships to the Strait of Hormuz.

Administration's Justifications

Administration officials provided various justifications for the Iran operation, including preventing the U.S. from being struck first, Israel's determination to act, preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, destroying its missile capabilities and navy, and cutting off support for proxy forces. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth stated that the U.S. and Israel were close to controlling Iranian airspace and could "sustain this fight easily for as long as we need to." President Trump indicated the operation was ahead of schedule but did not rule out deploying ground troops.

Congressional Debates and War Powers Resolutions

Both operations sparked extensive debate within the U.S. Congress, primarily centered on presidential authority to initiate military action without explicit legislative approval.

Congressional Notification and Justification

The White House notified the "Gang of Eight"—top congressional leaders and intelligence committee chairs—shortly before the Iran attacks. The Armed Services Committees received notification after the operations began. Administration officials conducted closed-door briefings for lawmakers, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth among the briefers.

Justifications for the actions were often debated. For Venezuela, it was largely framed as a law enforcement action based on a Department of Justice warrant. For Iran, justifications ranged from pre-emptive self-defense against "imminent threats" to dismantling Iran's nuclear and conventional military capabilities. Some lawmakers questioned the clarity and consistency of these justifications.

Lawmakers' Positions

• Republican Support: Many Republicans, including Senate Majority Leader John Thune and House Speaker Mike Johnson, supported President Trump's actions, citing threats to U.S. interests, Article II constitutional powers as commander-in-chief, and the necessity of decisive action.
• Democratic Criticism: Most Democrats, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, criticized the administration for bypassing Congress, questioning the legality of the actions, the sufficiency of evidence, and the potential for prolonged conflicts or "mission creep." Some, like Senator Chris Van Hollen, labeled certain actions as potential "war crimes." Others, like Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Bernie Sanders, characterized the actions as "unlawful" and "imperialism."
• Bipartisan Concerns: Some Republicans, such as Representatives Thomas Massie and Don Bacon, and Senator Rand Paul, joined Democrats in raising constitutional concerns about unauthorized military force. They emphasized Congress's sole power to declare war under Article I of the Constitution.

War Powers Resolutions

Lawmakers introduced War Powers Resolutions in both chambers to assert congressional authority over military engagements. These resolutions aimed to mandate the removal of U.S. forces from hostilities and require congressional approval for future military actions.

A Senate resolution sponsored by Senator Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) failed in a 51-50 vote, with Vice President JD Vance casting the tie-breaking vote. Two Republican senators who initially supported the measure, Josh Hawley and Todd Young, reversed their positions following discussions with administration officials who offered assurances regarding U.S. troop presence and future authorization requirements. A similar House resolution, sponsored by Representative Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), also failed in a 215-215 tie vote. Republican leaders reportedly kept the vote open to allow Representative Wesley Hunt to return and cast a decisive "no" vote.

War Powers Resolutions concerning Venezuela failed in both the House and Senate, often by narrow margins and with notable shifts in votes.

Multiple attempts to pass resolutions concerning Iran faced similar outcomes. The Senate voted against an Iran War Powers Resolution 53-47, and later, a similar measure by Senator Cory Booker (D-N.J.) was also defeated 53-47, marking the third such defeat. Senator John Fetterman (D-Pa.) was the only Democrat to vote against these resolutions, while Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) was the only Republican to support them. In the House, a resolution co-sponsored by Republican Representative Thomas Massie and Democratic Representative Ro Khanna failed 212-219.

Administration's Stance on War Powers

The Trump administration maintained that presidents, regardless of party, have not accepted the 1973 War Powers Resolution as constitutional, though they have complied with its reporting requirements. Republicans argued that restricting the President's authority during active combat would be "dangerous."

Funding and Public Hearings

Democrats pushed for public hearings with top administration officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, arguing that classified briefings were insufficient. They expressed unwillingness to support supplemental funding requests for the conflict without clear objectives and an exit strategy. The Center for Strategic and International Studies estimated the first 100 days of the Iran war could cost American taxpayers $3.7 billion.

Intelligence Assessments and Administration Justifications

The role of intelligence assessments and the administration's justifications for the Iran conflict drew particular scrutiny.

DNI Gabbard's Evolving Statements

Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabbard's public statements evolved regarding Iran's nuclear capabilities and the concept of an "imminent threat." Initially, Gabbard testified that Iran was not building a nuclear weapon and had not authorized a nuclear weapons program since 2003. When President Trump later dismissed this testimony and stated Iran was "very close to having one," Gabbard revised her public position via social media, stating that America had intelligence indicating Iran could produce a nuclear weapon "within weeks to months."

Challenges to the DNI's Stance

Subsequently, Gabbard stated that determining what constitutes an "imminent threat" was solely the President's responsibility, not the intelligence community's. Senator Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.) challenged this stance during a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing, citing the DNI's explicit role in "Worldwide Threats" assessment. Joe Kent, a former head of the National Counterterrorism Center and an aide to Gabbard, reportedly resigned in protest against the war in Iran.