03/18/2026

 

Samuel Clifford

 

Introduction

 

The House Judiciary Subcommittee on Oversight held a hearing on March 18, 2026 on the topic of the legal basis for the recent U.S. actions that involved Venezuela. Firstly, the Trump Administration ordered air strikes on Venezuelan drug trafficking boats. Then on January 3, 2026, the Trump Administration led an operation called Operation Absolute Resolve in which one goal was the arrest of Venezuelan President Nicholas Maduro. You can read more about the recent U.S. - Venezuelan relations here:

Trump Shuts Down Venezuela Airspace

Growing Tensions Between the United States and Venezuela

Marco Rubio Testifies Before Senate Foreign Relations Committee (Jan. 2026)

 

The Subcommittee on Oversight is responsible for monitoring how federal agencies and departments respond to oversight inquiries from the full committee and its subcommittees. It also reviews how those agencies’ legislative affairs offices operate when Congress is considering whether to create, amend, or repeal laws within the committee’s jurisdiction. The subcommittee is led by Representative Jefferson Van Drew (R-NJ‑2).

 

Chairman Van Drew Opening Statement

 

Representative Van Drew stated in his opening statement that Nicholas Maduro and his regime have worked with violent narcotics traffickers with a goal of flooding the U.S. with drugs. He called it a “narcoterrorist enterprise.” He cited the 2020 indictment of Nicholas Maduro by the U.S. Justice Department. The 2020 U.S. indictment of Nicolás Maduro accused him and several senior Venezuelan officials of participating in a long‑running criminal conspiracy built around narcotics trafficking, corruption, and the use of state power to facilitate illicit operations. The core allegations were:

 

1. Narco‑terrorism conspiracy: Prosecutors alleged that Maduro worked with the Cartel de los Soles and elements of the Colombian FARC to move large quantities of cocaine into the United States. 

 

2. Cocaine importation conspiracy: The indictment described a coordinated effort by Venezuelan officials to produce and transport drugs using state resources and diplomatic channels.  

 

3. Weapons‑related charges: Maduro and associates were charged with possession and conspiracy to possess machine guns and destructive devices in connection with the trafficking network.  

 

Ranking Member Crockett Opening Statement

 

Ranking Member Crockett argued that the Trump Administration did not follow processes for Operation Absolute Resolve and that what Donald Trump did has no legal basis. She cited that 40 civilians were killed and 83 people were killed total during the invasion. This statement was based on Venezuelan officials who confirmed that 83 people were killed during the invasion. She believes the fentanyl claim for Venezuela is overstated and that the DEA has never listed Venezuela as a fentanyl source or transit country. She stated the operation to capture Maduro was simply executed to control oil. 

 

List of Witnesses:

 

-Professor Josh Blackman, a professor of law and the sentinel chair of constitutional law at the South Texas College of Law in Houston TX.

 

Opening statement of Professor Blackman: 

 

 Professor Blackman argues that Operation Absolute Resolve needs to be understood in the “context of all that came before.” He cited the 2020 indictment against Maduro like Chairman Van Drew did. He also stated that on Jan. 20, 2025, President Trump designated tren de Aragua as a FTO (foreign terrorist organization). On March 15, 2025, Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 regarding tren de Aragua. On March 24, 2025 Trump imposed emergency tariffs on Venezuelan oil. On July 17, 2025 the department of Treasury imposed sanctions on top leaders of the tren de Aragua. In August of 2025 tensions between the U.S. and Venezuela increased as the U.S. began airstrikes on Venezuelan drug boats. He then goes over some of the strikes and the seizing of a Venezuelan oil tanker. On December 23, 2025 the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) signed a memorandum in which the Justice Department’s lawyers concluded that the U.S. President had the constitutional authority to order a military operation to remove Nicolás Maduro from power in Venezuela. 

 

-Mr. Franklin Camargo, a political commentator that fled Venezuela after Maduro’s regime accused him of terrorism because he advocated for political liberty and capitalism. He was granted asylum in the U.S. in 2019. 

 

Opening statement of Mr. Camargo:

 

Mr. Camargo opened by stating his personal experience. He stated he saw the failures of socialism in Venezuela and spoke out which caused the regime to label him a terrorist. He states he was lucky to escape but that his cousin was not lucky and was tortured. He states that he didn’t want to testify why Operation Absolute Resolve was legal, as other witnesses can. Instead, he wants to testify as why it was necessary. Firstly, he cited that 250 tons of cocaine was moved each year through Venezuela under the regime and that 30,000 Americans die of cocaine overdoses every year. Secondly, the regime established a conspiracy of sending violent criminals to U.S with the goal of destabilizing the U.S. He states that Venezuela has a right to sovereignty but that the sovereignty should be to the people and not the regime. He cited that the elections were stolen in 2013, 2018, and 2024. In other words, he argues that the capture of Maduro was necessary for American security. 

 

-Ms. Gina D’Andrea is the general counsel for the America First Policy Institute and was previously a litigation attorney for the AFPI.

 

Opening statement of Ms. D’Andrea:

 

Ms. D’Andrea argues that there is a legal basis for the authority of the President in this matter and that it has been exercised by many presidents all the way back to the founding fathers. She also cited the 2020 indictment. She stated that both the Biden and Trump Administration, as well as the European Union, do not recognize Maduro as the legitimate head of state of Venezuela. She states that Maduro is alleged to have aided the Iranian regime by helping Iranians enter the United States during the Biden Administration. 

 

She argues that Article II of the U.S. Constitution is sufficient to support action to address the threats from the United States neighbors. She stated that Operation Absolute Resolve was not an act of war or regime change but a “targeted law enforcement operation” to execute an arrest warrant. She cites that the U.S. did this before in 1989 to apprehend General Noriega who was a sitting dictator and similarly indicted on drug trafficking charges. She also cited the War Powers Resolution of 1973 that preserves the presidents article II authority and that President Trump upheld the process of the resolution. 

 

-Mr. Thomas Padden previously served as the acting director of the organized crime drug enforcement task force.

 

Opening statement of Mr. Padden:

 

Mr. Padden argues that the Trump Administration eliminated agencies responsible for the counter-drug mission of the U.S. He states that it replaced lawful investigations with military targeting. He states that the 2020 indictment of Maduro was executed thanks to OCDETF. The Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETF) is a U.S. Department of Justice program that targets major drug‑trafficking, money‑laundering, and transnational organized‑crime networks through coordinated, long‑term, multi‑agency investigations. However, the Trump Administration dismantles OCDETF last year. He also states that drug boats from Northern Venezuela are often heading to North Africa and that the elimination of them does not decrease the U.S illegal drug supply.

 

Information from 5 Minute Questions:

 

I can’t write down every question or answer so I decided to write down the information I believe was important.

 

U.N. Charter and Operation Absolute Resolve

 

The U.N. charter, which the U.S. signed on June 26, 1945,  prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state (Article 2[4]). It also allows force only in self-defense if an armed attack occurs, until the Security Council acts (Article 51). Rep. Johnson of GA asked Prof. Blackman if Operation Absolute Resolve was a violation of this international law. Prof. Blackman responds by stating a treaty cannot violate the President’s inherent constitutional powers. In other words a President does not have to follow a treaty if the treaty limits his constitutional powers. Rep. Onder asked this question again to Prof. Blackman and Prof. Blackman responded that Congress cannot sign away the President's constitutional power in a treaty. 

 

If Maduro was indicted in 2020, is the federal government obligated to make a reasonable attempt to take Maduro into government?

 

Rep. Schmidt asked this question to Prof. Blackman. Prof. Blackman responds that yes, and that we have done this before with General Noriega in Panama. 

 

Distinction Between Act of War and Law Enforcement Operation?

 

Prof. Blackman stated that in 2011 the Obama Administration set a precedent as the U.S. under former President Obama led a bombing campaign on Libya for a long time. There was an effort to stop the bombings and President Obama said that this does not rise to levels of war but instead are just hostilities. 

 

Sources

 

United States, Department of Justice. United States of America v. Nicolás Maduro Moros et al. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, 26 Mar. 2020. U.S. Department of Justice, www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1260821/download

 

https://www.youtube.com/live/gZEL1tDFS1Y?si=1iw7CzWAfqyhWrVB