NEW MEXICO January 4, 2026 — Rep. Melanie Stansbury (D-N.M.) sharply criticized President Donald Trump’s authorization of a U.S. military operation in Venezuela, describing it as an unlawful invasion and calling on Congress to assert its constitutional authority over war powers.
In a video posted to X on January 3, Stansbury addressed the overnight U.S. airstrikes and ground operation that resulted in the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores. The couple was flown to the United States, where Maduro faces long-standing drug trafficking and corruption charges.
“Overnight, the White House and the President had ordered airstrikes on the country of Venezuela, and U.S. military forces invaded Caracas [and] captured Maduro,” Stansbury said in the video, recorded from her home. She acknowledged Maduro as a “corrupt and illegitimate thug” responsible for widespread suffering but argued that Trump lacked the authority to launch the operation without congressional approval.
Stansbury urged lawmakers to support an upcoming War Powers Resolution, launch investigations into the administration’s actions, and hold officials accountable. “The President of the United States does not have the constitutional or legal authority to invade a foreign nation and to capture a foreign leader without consent from Congress,” she stated.
The operation, which Trump described as a “large-scale strike” to remove a “narco-terrorist” regime, has drawn international scrutiny. Trump announced that the U.S. would temporarily “run” Venezuela during a transitional period, including oversight of its oil and energy resources.
Maduro, indicted in the U.S. on narco-terrorism charges, is currently detained in New York awaiting trial.
Reactions in Venezuela and among its diaspora have been mixed, with reports of celebrations in some areas following Maduro’s removal after years of economic crisis and disputed elections.
Critics, including some legal experts and international observers, have questioned the operation’s legality under U.S. and international law, comparing it to past interventions like the 1989 invasion of Panama. Supporters hail it as a decisive blow against authoritarianism and drug trafficking in the region.
Stansbury’s statement reflects growing partisan divides over the action as Congress prepares to reconvene.
About The Author
