3.3.1 Formal sources of presidential power as outlined in the US Constitution and their use
3.3.2 Informal sources of presidential power and their use
3.3.3.2 Limitations on presidential power and why this varies between presidents
3.3.4 Interpretations and debates of the US presidency
In January 2026, President Donald Trump authorised a US special forces operation in Caracas that resulted in the capture of Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro and his transfer to the United States to face long-standing criminal charges. According to Reuters and the Associated Press, the White House framed the operation not as an act of war, but as a tightly focused mission to detain an individual already indicted by US courts. That distinction was central to how Trump sought to justify the action, even as critics argued that sending armed troops into another sovereign state crossed a clear threshold into military conflict.
The legal basis advanced by the administration rested primarily on the president’s role as commander in chief under Article II of the Constitution. Trump officials argued that Maduro’s government was directly linked to transnational criminal groups involved in drug trafficking and violence against US interests. In this reading, the operation was an act of national self-defence rather than a declaration of war, allowing the president to act quickly without prior congressional approval. This approach echoed earlier Trump-era arguments used to justify strikes against terrorist groups, where speed and secrecy were presented as essential to national security.
Context mattered just as much as constitutional text. Trump repeatedly described Venezuela as a “criminal narco-state”, closely tied to gangs such as Tren de Aragua, which his administration had previously labelled a terrorist threat. By placing Maduro within a broader narrative of organised crime and terrorism, the White House sought to blur the line between foreign policy, law enforcement, and military action. The capture of a foreign leader was therefore presented less as regime change and more as the arrest of a dangerous individual who happened to hold office.
This episode illustrates how presidential power operates in practice. Formal authority as commander in chief is often reinforced by informal powers such as agenda-setting, control of intelligence, and the ability to frame threats in urgent terms. At the same time, it highlights enduring debates about whether modern presidents have accumulated too much unilateral power in matters of war, and how effective constitutional checks really are when decisions are made at speed and justified in the language of national security.