The Donroe Doctrine...are you kidding me?

By now, it has come to most people’s attention, the United States apprehended the President of Venezuela and his wife.  Both were arrested and flown to New York City to be arraigned and imprisoned to await trial.  An indictment for Maduro charges him with being a narco-terrorist, conspiracy, drug trafficking, money laundering and corruption.  Maduro is accused of directing resources of Venezuela (armed guards among other things) to protect cocaine shipments, using his power of the state to facilitate drug operations…all of which appeared in a U.S. indictment issued in 2020.

At the time of the indictment, a reward of 15 million dollars was placed upon Maduro’s head.  As of August of 2025, that reward had grown to 50 million.

I cannot argue with the capture of Maduro.  Just as President Obama went after Osama bin Laden, using lethal force to dispose of bin Laden, President Trump had to use military force to apprehend Maduro and his wife.  According to Secretary of State Rubio, Maduro was given numerous options by the United States to leave Venezuela peacefully, but refused.  Only Maduro can answer why he didn’t take the opportunity to leave, and we can only speculate about this thought process.

However, there are politicians who are debating if the apprehension was a legal move by the President.  One may imagine President Trump’s answer for those who question his decision, but it wasn’t what was expected.  Trump claimed this action to be a legal apprehension of a criminal; the action taken because the opportunity was right.  But to do so required special forces of the military along with the destruction of Venezuelan military outposts as well as infrastructure. 

And therein lies the conundrum.

From the National Constitution Center

“Most people agree, at minimum, that the Declare War Clause grants Congress an exclusive power. That is, Presidents cannot, on their own authority, declare war. Although it is somewhat more contested among scholars and commentators, most people also agree that Presidents cannot initiate wars on their own authority (a minority argues that Presidents may initiate uses of force without formally declaring war and that  Congress’s exclusive power to “declare war” refers only to issuing a formal proclamation).

In modern times, however, Presidents have used military force without formal declarations or express consent from Congress on multiple occasions. For example, President Truman ordered U.S. forces into combat in Korea; President Reagan ordered the use of military force in, among other places, Libya, Grenada and Lebanon; President George H.W. Bush directed an invasion of Panama to topple the government of Manual Noriega; and President Obama used air strikes to support the ouster of Muammar Qaddafi in Libya. Some commentators argue that, whatever the original meaning of the Declare War Clause, these episodes (among others) establish a modern practice that allows the President considerable independent power to use military force.

In general, most scholars and commentators accept that presidential uses of force comport with the Declare War Clause if they come within one of three (or possibly four) categories, though the scope of these categories remains contested.”
 
First, Presidents may use military force if specifically authorized by Congress.

Second, Presidents are thought to have independent authority to use military force in response to attacks on the United States.
 
Third, Presidents may use other constitutional powers – principally the commander-in-chief power – to deploy U.S. forces in situations that do not amount to war.

A fourth potential category is using force under the authority of the United Nations, which some commentators have argued can substitute for approval by Congress. 

And then there is the War Powers Act of 1973.

The War Powers Act (or Resolution) of 1973 is a U.S. law limiting the President's ability to commit troops to armed conflict without Congress's approval, passed after the Vietnam War to restore Congress's war-making authority.  It requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying forces and mandates removal after 60 days (with a possible 30-day extension) unless Congress authorizes the action. While intended to strengthen legislative oversight, its effectiveness and constitutionality are subjects of ongoing debate, with presidents often challenging its limits. 
 
Key Provisions

• Notification: The President must report to Congress within 48 hours of introducing U.S. armed forces into hostilities.
• Consultation: The President should consult with Congress before introducing forces.
• Time Limit: Military action must end within 60 days unless Congress authorizes it or declares war.
• Withdrawal: A 30-day period is allowed for safe withdrawal of forces after the 60-day limit.
• Congressional Authority: Congress retains its constitutional to declare war.

How did Trump justify this apprehension without consulting Congress?  The Secretary of State and President Trump both stated this wasn’t an attack on Venezuela, but indicated the Justice Department sought military assistance to apprehend Maduro, along with his wife.  In other words, the military was needed to facilitate the Justice Department’s desire.
 
Trump, admittedly did not consult with the Congress or Congressional leaders as required by the War Powers Act.  Trump said he didn’t have to because of the nature of the action…the apprehension of Maduro.  And our President also said he was afraid of leaks coming out of Congress if he did consult the members of Congress which would have caused the mission to fail.  

That is a fair assessment, but, as quickly as Trump has called people a traitor, i.e. Marjorie Taylor Green, Mark Kelly, among others, Trump could have easily told the members of Congress with whom he was to consult, if anyone leaks this information, you will be charged with “Accessory after the Fact”, because leaking the information could prevent Maduro from being apprehended.  
 
But Trump didn’t.  Why?  Because he either doesn’t trust members of Congress, or, in his mind there was no need to do so because this was a US Department of Justice operation and doesn’t fall within the War Powers Act.  Or, because no one in the government has stepped forward to challenge the President.  The Democratic leadership has spoken weak words; the Republicans have abdicated their Congressional power to Trump.  And the abyss grows deeper.
 
And, once again, therein lies the conundrum.
 
In the press conference held by the President following the action in Venezuela, Maduro was the subject of discussion, until the President added his comments about China, Iran, and Russia having interests in Venezuela.  In short, the President invoked the Monroe Doctrine of 1823, which simply stated the Western Hemisphere was closed to future colonization by any country outside the Western Hemisphere.  During President Theodore Roosevelt’s tenure in office, the Roosevelt Corollary was produced which essentially said the US would be the “policeman” of the Western Hemisphere.  The statement of “Walk softly but carry a big stick” came out of Roosevelt’s desire to police the Americas.

The President has now renamed the Monroe Doctrine to the “Donroe Doctrine”.
 
From Newsweek
 
"The Monroe Doctrine is a big deal, but we’ve superseded it by a lot, by a real lot," Trump said during a press conference at his Mar-a-Lago Club in Florida, in the wake of the  U.S.’s extensive operations against Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro in the early hours of Saturday. "They now call it the 'Donroe Doctrine."

"We sort of forgot about it — it was very important, but we forgot about it. We don't forget about it anymore," the President added. "American dominance in the Western Hemisphere will never be questioned again."
 
I don’t believe JFK forgot about it during the Cuban Missile Crisis or President Reagan when he was asked by the Prime Minister of Grenada to invoke the Monroe Doctrine and rid Grenada of hundreds of Cuban and Soviet personnel from the island.  And, I will speculate that foreign diplomats are aware of the Monroe Doctrine.  

So, when President Trump made the accusation of China, Iran, and Russia being involved with investments in Venezuela, and the need to rid Venezuela of those countries, the question that goes unasked is “Was this truly an apprehension of Maduro or a military action designed to activate a regime change in Venezuela and rid that country of China, Iran, and Russia thereby invoking the Monroe Doctrine?”  Secretary of State Rubio made several statements on Sunday morning television, “Meet the Press” and “Face the Nation” that the action in Venezuela was in the best interests of the United States national security, to apprehend Maduro and to rid Venezuela of China, Iran, and Russia investments and influence.

All of this is how the White House spins the story of the action in Venezuela.  The White House can unequivocably state we got our man (and wife).  We are willing to work with whomever takes the reigns in Venezuela…but what does “work with whomever” mean?  Does it mean we will work with whomever as long as whomever does what we want?  The White House has said it is only interested in providing stability, opportunity, and bring wealth to the people of Venezuela…but at what cost?  And to whom?

Trump is a transactional leader.  He has written a book in 1987 titled “’The Art of the Deal”.  He does little unless there is some sort of compensation in return.  We need to wait and see what that compensation may be.