Principles, policy, and politics collided in the Senate on Wednesday as Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) sparred over the legality and consequences of the raid that brought Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro to the United States.
In a heated exchange, Paul argued the operation veered into dangerous constitutional territory.
“I think we’re in violation of both the spirit and the law of the Constitution by bombing a capital, blockading a country, and removing elected officials,” Paul said, warning that Americans would never accept another nation doing the same to the United States.
Rubio pushed back immediately.
“We didn’t remove an elected official,” he replied, contending Maduro was not legitimately chosen by voters and emphasizing Maduro’s alleged criminal status under U.S. law.
“We removed someone who was not elected,” Rubio said. “And it was actually an indicted drug trafficker in the United States.”
Paul countered that being indicted in the U.S. doesn’t settle the broader question of precedent, noting that legitimacy disputes happen in many countries and don’t automatically justify unilateral action.
“It probably was, and most likely was — most assuredly was — a bad election. He wasn’t really elected,” Paul said. But he warned that using that logic as a trigger for removal operations could invite instability and expand presidential power beyond constitutional checks.
“And that’s why we have rules like the Constitution,” Paul said. “It is this check and balance.”
Rubio argued the raid did not rise to the constitutional threshold of war, saying the administration viewed it as a law-enforcement-linked operation rather than a military conflict.
“We just don’t believe that this operation comes anywhere close to the constitutional definition of war,” Rubio said, according to The Hill.
Paul responded by reframing the scenario: if a foreign force entered the U.S., carried out a swift mission, and seized the American president—would that be war?
“Of course it would be an act of war,” Paul said, adding that even as one of the Senate’s most outspoken critics of overseas intervention, he would support a declaration of war if the U.S. were invaded and its leader taken.
In his prepared opening remarks, Rubio defended the operation as a targeted action to support law enforcement and hold alleged traffickers accountable.
“This was an operation to aid law enforcement,” Rubio said. “The United States arrested two narcotraffickers who are now going to stand trial in the United States for the crimes they committed against our people.”
Rubio also argued Maduro should not be treated as a legitimate head of state, asserting that many governments rejected the results of Venezuela’s disputed 2024 election.
“Maduro is an indicted drug trafficker, not a legal head of state,” Rubio said, adding that the European Union, the United States, and numerous Latin American countries did not recognize Maduro as Venezuela’s legitimate president after the contested vote.
Rubio further claimed Maduro refused to step aside and used force to retain power, while describing the operation as a turning point for Venezuela’s future.
“President Trump’s actions have created the conditions for Venezuelans to begin returning home and rebuilding their country,” Rubio said, arguing the U.S. is prepared to support a transition “from a criminal state to a responsible partner.”
“All of this was accomplished without the loss of a single American life, or an ongoing military occupation,” Rubio testified, calling the outcome unusually significant given the limited cost.
