This Law Professor's Take on Trump's Venezuelan Raid Will Surely Anger the Libs

It was an awesome raid. It exemplified the professionalism of our military, its lethality, and pinpoint accuracy. Quietly, it shreds everything Democrats have said about the Pentagon and how it's run. They’re mad because Trump and his team are better than they are. It was a successful raid, where no Americans were killed. Deep down, we all know the Democrats hoped the mission would have failed, with scores of our elite troops lying dead in the streets. Alas, that did not happen.

On January 3, Delta Force landed, grabbed Nicolas Maduro and his wife, and extradited him to the United States to face narcotics charges, among other things. This followed a hellacious air campaign. The vaunted air defense systems in Venezuela did nothing. So, as Democrats and internationalist trash try to frame this as a war crime, we have the facts and law on our side. Sorry, libs, but you lose again, not least because Barack Obama executed more drone strikes, killed more civilians, and also engaged in a military action in Libya for which you all were calm like Hindu cows. Americans were on kill lists; you said nothing. Please keep your mouths shut, you slow, stupid, low-energy morons.

Law Professor Jonathan Turley wrote at length about the raid and came to one conclusion, about its legality [emphasis mine]:

...My strong preferences for congressional authorization and consultation are immaterial. The question I am asked as a legal analyst is whether this operation would be viewed as lawful. The answer remains yes.
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) January 4, 2026

After an extraordinary operation to capture Maduro, Trump was faced with socialist Maduro allies on every level of the government. He is not willing to allow those same regressive elements to reassert themselves.
The problem is that, if the purpose was regime change, this attack was an act of war, which is why Rubio struggled to bring the presser back to the law enforcement purpose. I have long criticized the erosion of the war declaration powers of Congress, including my representation of members of Congress in opposition to Obama’s Libyan war effort.
The fact, however, is that we lost that case. Trump knows that. Courts have routinely dismissed challenges to undeclared military offensives against other nations. In fairness to Trump, most Democrats were as quiet as church mice when Obama and Hillary Clinton attacked Libya’s capital and military sites to achieve regime change without any authorization from Congress. They were also silent when Obama vaporized an American under this “kill list” policy without even a criminal charge. So please spare me the outrage now.
My strong preferences for congressional authorization and consultation are immaterial. The question I am asked as a legal analyst is whether this operation would be viewed as lawful. The answer remains yes.
The courts have previously upheld the authority of presidents to seize individuals abroad, including the purported heads of state. This case is actually stronger in many respects than the one involving Noriega. Maduro will now make the same failed arguments that Noriega raised. He should lose those challenges under existing precedent. If courts apply the same standards to Trump (which is often an uncertain proposition), Trump will win on the right to seize Maduro and bring him to justice.
But then, how about the other rationales rattled off at Mar-A-Lago? In my view, it will not matter.
[…]
…returning to the legal elements, I do not see how a court could free Maduro simply because it disapproves of nation-building. Presidents have engaged in such policies for years. The aftermath of the operation is distinct from its immediate purpose. Trump can argue that, absent countervailing action from Congress, he has the authority under Article II of the Constitution to lay the foundation for a constitutional and economic revival in Venezuela.