“The Legal Basis for Action Against Venezuelan Drug Traffickers”

Subcommittee will now come to order without objection. The chair is authorized to declare a recess at any time. We welcome everyone to today's hearing on the legal basis for action against Venezuelan drug traffickers. I now recognize the gentleman from Kansas who will lead us in the pledge and then we will have a moment of silence for all of our troops including the airmen that were killed in Iraq. Please rise.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Please remain standing for a moment of silence. I will now recognize myself for an opening statement. I want to welcome everyone to the hearing on the Subcommittee on Oversight. Today, we're going to examine the legal authority and the national security interests that supported the United States' successful operation to apprehend indicted narcoterrorist Nicolás Maduro. For decades, Nicolás Maduro and senior officials in his regime worked with some of the world's most violent narcotics traffickers to flood our United States of America with dangerous drugs. Let's be clear about what this was. Maduro directed a narcoterrorism enterprise that trafficked thousands of tons of cocaine into the United States of America. This enriched his regime. It empowered criminal cartels. And it poisoned communities across our country. These are our children, our families, our brothers, our sisters, our aunts and uncles and I say that during a lot of these hearings because I want people to feel it and realize it and understand this is not just some vague notion or concept or philosophy. These are real people whose lives are destroyed forever. And it wasn't just corruption. And it wasn't just politics. It was organized crime at the highest level of government. In 2020, the Department of Justice unsealed an indictment charging Maduro with multiple federal crimes including drug trafficking and narcoterrorism. For years, Maduro evaded justice. He hid behind a fortified regime protected by armed loyalists and foreign security forces. But on January 3, 2026, that changed. The president authorized a targeted operation to capture Maduro and bring him to the United States of America to face true justice. U.S. law enforcement, intelligence agencies, and military personnel spent months gathering intelligence and coordinating the operation codenamed Absolute Resolve. During a precise, a very precise nighttime raid in Caracas, U.S. forces extracted Maduro and his wife from a military compound and transported them to the United States of America. Days later, the couple was arraigned in federal court in New York on these serious charges. Now, you know, some critics have tried to find fault with this operation. They've tried to frame it as an operation as something that it was not. So let me once again be clear. This mission was not an invasion. This mission was not a war. This mission was not regime change. This mission always was a law enforcement operation to apprehend indicted fugitives who spent decades, decades orchestrating criminal activity that harmed our American people. The Constitution clearly grants the president broad authority to conduct such operations, Article II authority. The president serves as the commander in chief and as the chief executive responsible for faithfully executing the laws of the United States. When American law enforcement could not safely breach a fortified compound controlled by an indicted narcoterrorist, the president had the authority to deploy military force to support the arrest operation. History supports this type of action. Presidents from both sides of the aisle have authorized U.S. forces to operate to confront criminal regimes, protect American interests, and bring dangerous criminals to justice. And that's exactly what happened. In the months leading to Maduro's capture, the United States also conducted decisive marine operations to disrupt drug smuggling networks operating near Venezuela. U.S. forces carried out targeted strikes on vessels transporting narcotics through the Caribbean and the Eastern Pacific. These operations dismantled cartel logistics networks and cut off funding streams that supported drug trafficking and terrorism. At the same time, the United States seized sanctioned oil tankers and imposed a maritime blockade on vessels supporting Venezuela's shadow illegal, often illegal oil trade. Those actions mattered. They weakened the financial lifelines that allowed Maduro's regime to operate with impunity. Together, these efforts restored deterrence in the region and helped protect the American homeland from transnational threats and criminals. And you know, as an aside, the Venezuelan people are so subject to this reign of terror. So many of them, the vast majority of them, don't want to suffer through this but they're forced to. You know, quite frankly, in Venezuela, they don't have the Second Amendment and for them to try to oppose the administration, they're literally there with rakes and shovels and baseball bats. And that just doesn't work. These poor people have been terrorized and destroyed themselves. Maduro's arrest weakened the influence of hostile actors who used his regime as a foothold in the Western Hemisphere. Who were they? Iranian operatives. Who were they? Hezbollah operatives, Chinese operatives, transnational criminal organizations, really bad evil folks. All of them exploited Maduro's government to expand their operations around the world. By dismantling this regime's leadership, the United States took a major step, a major step toward restoring stability and securing security in our hemisphere of the world. Critics have claimed the president's actions were unlawful but both domestic and international law supports them and what they did. The United States acted to enforce U.S. criminal law, to protect American citizens, to dismantle a narcoterrorist network responsible for enormous, unspeakable destructive harm. Ultimately, the operations in and around Venezuela sent a very, very clear message. Those who traffic drugs, enable terrorism, and undermine democracy and they cannot hide behind corrupt regimes forever. Not in Venezuela and hope to God someday not anywhere. The United States will pursue justice wherever those criminals attempt to hide. And successful operation of Operation Resolve proves exactly that. We literally will save lives and families because of the work that was done there. It's really tangible. It's real. It makes a difference. I thank all the witnesses for being here today on both sides of this issue. We look forward to hearing from you and once again, I thank you. I am now going to recognize the ranking member, Ms. Crockett, for an opening statement.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to the witnesses for being here and it seems like we have a lot of students, otherwise y'all got real young faces in here. So I want to thank each and every one of you for being here today. Unfortunately, this is a conversation I never thought we should have and so let's get into it. The so-called president of peace has spent all his time in office dragging the United States into conflict all over the world. He's threatened our closest allies. He's started another unauthorized regime change war in the Middle East. And in this instance, he invaded a sovereign nation and kidnapped its leader. Now, I don't want y'all to get it twisted and believe for any reason that I think Maduro is a saint. But there are processes. A lot of Republicans in Congress and on this committee will argue that Trump's attack on Venezuela will be for the good of the Venezuelan people as the chairman has laid out. But let me be clear, Donald Trump does not care about the Venezuelan people and let me give you the receipts on how I know. He said that Venezuelans were invading the United States. He terminated the protected status of more than 350,000 Venezuelans. He deported Venezuelans to El Salvador's terrorist prison even though many of them had no criminal record. So this was never about helping the Venezuelan people. Donald Trump does not care about Venezuelans at all. To be clear, there is no legal basis for the United States government to invade a sovereign country and kidnap its leader. There is no legal basis for recklessly bombing people who pose no immediate threat to the United States and the exact language that I believe the chairman used was that this was a precise operation. I don't know if his definition of precise includes the fact that there were at least 40 civilians killed in this operation in Venezuela and there was a total of 83 persons that were killed during this invasion. But Donald Trump's unlawful military action in Venezuela was never about stopping illicit drugs from entering the United States. According to the DEA's National Drug Threat Assessment, Venezuela has little to no role in smuggling illicit fentanyl into the United States. In fact, DEA has never listed Venezuela as a fentanyl source or transit country. Coast Guard and military data do not show any fentanyl coming from Venezuelan linked maritime routes. It's interesting because the last thing that I remember hearing about is that the president decided not to consult with Congress before going into Venezuela but to consult with oil corporate executives. I'll just put that out there. And Donald Trump, he also pardoned former Honduran president Juan Hernández who was found guilty in a court of law in these United States of trafficking more than 400 tons of cocaine into the United States which is double the amount of cocaine that Trump's own State Department estimates was trafficked through the entire country of Venezuela. International drug traffickers love Donald Trump because they know that even if they are arrested, it's easy enough to get a pardon from him. The data shows that Donald Trump is one of the most pro-drug trafficking presidents in modern day history. Since he took office, prosecutions for drug trafficking have fallen to the lowest levels in decades because the agents tasked with going after drug cartels have either been fired or forced to start raiding your local Home Depot or illegally breaking into the homes of American citizens or monitoring community schools and churches so that the government can disappear entire families. It was never about protecting Americans. It was never about bringing democracy to Venezuela. It was never about stopping illicit drugs from entering the country. Like everything else this administration does, it was about corruption. The president told oil executives about the planned attack days before it happened. Trump then promised that all companies would be fully reimbursed by American taxpayers for any investments they make in Venezuela. And once the president illegally took control over Venezuela's oil reserves, the first sale went to the company of a man who donated $6 million to Trump's campaign. This is why the president attacked Venezuela. This was about greed. This was about controlling their oil, so that the oil executives who donated to his campaign could make even more money. Not only was this illegal and corrupt, it's also extremely expensive for U.S. taxpayers. The operations to capture Maduro cost taxpayers at least $3 billion. And it is now costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars to maintain the oil tankers that the United States government has seized, and as a Texan, let me tell you, this is not helping those in my state that engage in oil work. This erratic and illegal foreign policy is now responsible for the death of 13 U.S. service members and has made the Republican-caused economic crisis even worse. The final point that I'll make is that, especially as we have young people here, I think there is a lot that we can learn from our youth. I remember as a little girl being told things like two wrongs don't make a right. It is very clear that Maduro is a wrong guy, and he may have even been illegally in power. But the idea that you would meet illegality with further illegality does not necessarily make it a right. So as someone who is trained in the law, as someone who still respects the law, as someone who believes that law and order should matter in this country, I can't speak for others. It is a shame that we do not have enough people that understand the Constitution that are serving in the Congress and decide that they want to stand up and protect Americans as we have a lawless 34-count convicted felon that is continuing to engage in illegal actions that are harming both us here domestically as well as Americans and others abroad. With that, I will yield.

Thank you, Ms. Crockett. I will now recognize the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Ms. Crockett.

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and thanks to the witnesses for joining us today. Since the summer, the administration has launched more than 40 strikes on alleged drug boats in international waters, mostly in the Caribbean, killing at least 157 people. This is without any declaration of war, and I am also moved like Ms. Crockett by all the young people here today, and I just want to remind you to read your Constitution because in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11, it gives Congress the power to declare war. The founders of our country were so adamant about this. James Madison wrote a letter to Thomas Jefferson specifically on the subject, saying that the kings were constantly plunging their countries into wars of conceit and vanity, imperial avarice, and corruption, and it had to be the representatives of the people who decide to go to war and not one guy. So today, not Donald Trump, not J.D. Vance, not Tulsi Gabbard, it's got to be the representatives of the people. But as with what's taking place in Iran today, there's no declaration of war. And as I survey the wreckage of this administration's drug enforcement policy, I'm reminded of what Talleyrand said about Napoleon, who murdered one of his cousins. He said, this is worse than a crime, it's a mistake. And so what has taken place with these lethal strikes on drug boats is both a crime, murder plain and simple, but it's also a mistake. The administration has not provided any plausible legal justification under domestic or international law for Trump to use the military to kill anyone that he unilaterally deems to be a terrorist. If these people were on U.S. soil, they would be arrested based on probable cause if it existed. They'd be indicted. They'd be tried in court. And then they'd be convicted by a jury of their peers, or they'd be acquitted. Donald Trump knows something about the criminal justice process. He demanded every right in the arsenal of due process rights we have, and well he should have when he was convicted on 36 different counts of felony fraud. But he had the right to counsel, he had the right to present evidence, he had the right to cross-examine, he had the right to be indicted, and the right to a jury of his peers deciding the case. Even out at sea, our Coast Guard knows how to interdict a ship and take sailors into custody. In America, we arrest and we prosecute people who commit crimes. We don't blow them out of the water with a Hellfire missile. These boat strikes are also, though, spectacular and costly mistakes, obviously a made-for-TikTok distraction covering up the completely ineffectual drug policies of the administration and then in a self-defeating way preventing us from focusing on what really works in fighting drugs. Under the Biden administration, the U.S. saw the largest drop in opioid and fentanyl overdose deaths in history, from 80,000 in 2023 to 54,000 in 2024. Again, a huge number of people, but still moving things in the right direction. In West Virginia, opioid deaths declined by 46 percent. In Wisconsin by 44 percent. Things were moving in the right direction. But President Trump appears to be doing everything in his power to reverse this progress with his characteristic recklessness and bravado. Just a few months ago, he slashed staffing at the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration by 50 percent. He terminated $1.7 billion in block grants for mental health services for state health departments, and he cut $350 million in addiction and overdose prevention funding in 2025. It's already way underfunded, but he's been slashing away at the money that's actually there. His one big ugly bill cut tens of billions of dollars out of Medicaid, which provides health coverage to nearly half of adults in America who have an opioid use disorder. But we are not going to be able to treat addiction to opioids and the crisis we have in overdoses by blowing up boats in the middle of the ocean. We've got to treat the people who are suffering from these addictions. Mr. Chairman, it's not a video game, it's a national public health and medical emergency, and we're not going to be able to bomb our way out of a fentanyl crisis. So more than 5,000 FBI and DEA agents have been reassigned from combating drug cartels, actually fighting drug cartels, to immigration enforcement in order to meet Stephen Miller's immigration quotas. Last year, Attorney General Bondi terminated the Department of Justice's Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces, a long-standing strike force created by Ronald Reagan, which allowed DOJ to coordinate with agencies investigating cartels and international criminal networks. Over the last four decades, these task forces conducted more than 37,000 investigations of overseas criminal drug and trafficking enterprises, leading to the conviction of over 321,000 defendants, and we're dismantling it. Our witness today, Thomas Padden, is the former acting director of the Organized Crime and Drug Enforcement Task Force. As a non-partisan law enforcement professional, Mr. Padden can testify to what was the efficacy and utility of this task force when it comes to dismantling drug trafficking networks, and he can explain just how dangerous the elimination of these tools will be and already has been for our country. The Trump administration claims it launched these deadly boat strikes because the Maduro regime was bringing cocaine into the United States and Trump is a tough and determined fighter of cocaine. But check this out. Just last year, President Trump pardoned Juan Orlando Hernández, the convicted mega-cocaine trafficker and disgraced former president of the country of Honduras. Hernández turned Honduras into a full-blown narco-state and used his presidency to operate one of the largest and most violent drug trafficking conspiracies on earth. When asked why Trump would pardon a narco-trafficker responsible for shipping 400 tons of cocaine, that's more than 800,000 pounds of cocaine, someone will correct my math if I'm wrong on that, 800,000 pounds of cocaine into our country, President Trump responded that the decade-long criminal investigation into Hernández was, quote, nothing more than a Biden setup, which is a remarkable claim given that it was Trump's own former defense attorney and former DOJ senior official and now hand-picked federal judge, Emil Bove, who built the case against Hernández and his family during Trump's first term. But Hernández the coke smuggler and dealer, who was taped saying we're going to shove the drugs up the noses of the gringos, he had apparently other connections to the Trump family and the Trump White House and he was able to get his pardon. And if you think that was unusual, check out Trump's pardon of Ross Ulbricht, the founder of Silk Road, a website that facilitated more than 1.5 million narcotics transactions. Prosecutors described Ulbricht as the kingpin of a worldwide digital drug trafficking enterprise for his role in operating the crypto-powered online black market, which facilitated the sale not just of cocaine, but heroin and fentanyl and other deadly drugs. Well, this drug kingpin-friendly administration has cut healthcare funding for Americans who are suffering from opioid use disorder. They've pardoned narco-traffickers and they've dismantled the law enforcement apparatus that actually combats drug trafficking and international crime. Federal drug prosecutions dropped by 10 percent last year. This new shoot first, ask questions later approach to the war on drugs has not substantially stopped drugs from coming in the country in any way. And for decades, the Coast Guard stopped the same boats we're blowing up now. We've not stopped any fentanyl from coming to the United States, the drug primarily responsible for killing Americans, since Venezuela does not produce or export any substantial amount of fentanyl. They changed the subject and started talking about cocaine. These strikes fundamentally weaken our ability to bring cases against drug kingpins or the networks that actually sent these drugs since we're blowing up the lower-level witnesses that we need in order to indict and prosecute higher-level operators. Well, it's not just the pardons that make no sense. ICE's obsession with meeting Miller's deportation targets has led them to detain individuals who should be standing trial for their drug offenses. In a number of cases, state drug cases have been delayed or even dismissed altogether where defendants detained by ICE have failed to appear in court. One judge was forced to dismiss a case against a person working with the Sinaloa drug cartel because he was in ICE custody instead and was deported. If they've committed crimes here, they should be prosecuted here and they should be sentenced and fined here. The billions of dollars these unlawful and ineffective executions cost could be used to save American lives. We should fully restore mental health service funding. We could support rural hospitals that are on the front line of this addiction crisis. We could be investigating real drug traffickers and prosecuting more drug cases. But Secretary of War Hegseth needs his clicks, and so we continue bumbling down this reckless, inexplicable, and counterproductive path. It's not just a crime, it's a mistake. I yield back to you, Mr. Chairman.

I thank the ranking member. Without objection, all other opening statements will be included in the record. We will now introduce today's witnesses. Professor Josh Blackman. Mr. Blackman is a professor of law and the Centennial Chair of Constitutional Law at the South Texas College of Law Houston, Texas. He researched his research focuses on constitutional law, the intersection of law and technology, and the United States Supreme Court. Mr. Franklin Camargo. I hope I pronounced that correctly. Good. Mr. Camargo is a political commentator. He fled Venezuela after the Maduro regime accused him of terrorism. They accused him of terrorism for advocating for political liberty and capitalism. He was granted political asylum by the United States in 2019. I know we can't make the whole world run right, and I know we can't change all the regimes, but Venezuela was a cruel and horrible place, and so many people were mistreated and hurt there. Ms. Gina D'Andrea. Ms. D'Andrea is the general counsel for the America First Policy Institute. She previously was the deputy general counsel and a litigation attorney for the AFPI. Mr. Thomas Padden. Mr. Padden previously served as the acting director of the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force from June 2008 to March 2025. He served as the deputy director of the task force. We're going to begin by swearing you all in. So would you please rise? And once you've risen, please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm under the penalty of perjury that the testimony you're about to give is true and correct according to the best of your knowledge, information, and belief, so help you God? Thank you, you may sit down. Let the record reflect that the witnesses have answered in the affirmative. Please know that your written testimony will be entered into the record in its entirety, all of it. Accordingly, we ask that you summarize your testimony to five minutes. Professor Blackman, we're going to start with you. The floor is yours.

Thank you. Chairman Van Drew, Ranking Member Crockett, Ranking Member Raskin, thank you for inviting me to testify. My name is Josh Blackman, and I hold the Centennial Chair of Constitutional Law at the South Texas College of Law Houston. I'm grateful this hearing was titled at a broad level of generality: the legal basis for action against Venezuelan drug traffickers. This hearing is not about a series of isolated events, such as boat strikes in the Caribbean or the arrest of Nicolas Maduro. Rather, over the course of six years, the first and second Trump administration took a series of escalating actions against Venezuelan drug traffickers, culminating in Operation Absolute Resolve on January 3, 2026. The legal basis for the boat strikes and Maduro's arrest must be understood in the context of all that came before. In my brief testimony, I want to offer a bird's-eye view of the actions taken. First, on March 26 of 2020, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York unsealed a criminal indictment against Maduro on charges of narco-terrorism. Second, on January 20 of 2025, President Trump designated Tren de Aragua, TDA, as a foreign terrorist organization, FTO. The third event occurred on March 15 of 2025. President Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 regarding TDA. The proclamation stated that Maduro maintains close ties to regime-sponsored narco-terrorists, including TDA. The president used a proclamation to move alleged TDA members. However, Judge James Boasberg ordered the planes to turn around over international waters, and to this day, the federal court is still considering whether President Trump properly invoked the Alien Enemies Act. This statute has been on the books since John Adams was president. The fourth event occurred on March 24 of 2025. President Trump imposed emergency tariffs on Venezuelan oil. The executive order found that the Maduro regime continues to pose unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States. Fourth, on July 17 of 2025, the Treasury Department imposed sanctions on top leaders of TDA. At the time, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that Maduro, currently indicted by our nation, has corrupted Venezuela's institutions to assist the cartel's criminal narco-trafficking scheme into the United States. Fifth, according to press reports, by August of 2025, President Trump had directed the Pentagon to use military forces against TDA. Throughout August, there was a major buildup of naval forces in the Caribbean. Sixth, on September 2, 2025, President Trump announced that, quote, "U.S. military forces conducted a kinetic strike against a TDA boat in international waters, which was operating under the control of Nicolas Maduro." President Trump's letter to Congress said this strike was justified as, quote, "self-defense of the United States." To date, the military has struck approximately 45 vessels. Seventh, in October, Pentagon officials and the head of the Office of Legal Counsel briefed members of Congress, maybe even some of you, about the legal basis for the boat strikes. The opinion was based on the premise that the president can determine that the United States is in a formal armed conflict with narco-terrorist drug cartels. This opinion has not been made public, and I haven't seen it. On November 6 of 2025, the Senate voted on a War Powers Resolution that would terminate hostilities against Venezuela. That resolution did not pass. Eighth, on December 10 of 2025, the United States seized an oil tanker off the coast of Venezuela. Ninth, on December 23 of 2025, the Office of Legal Counsel signed a 22-page opinion concluding that the president may lawfully order military personnel to assist law enforcement in removing Maduro from Venezuela. That opinion has been released, and I'm happy to discuss it with you later today. Tenth, on January 3 of 2026, the United States executed the law enforcement operation known as Operation Absolute Resolve. FBI agents, who were protected by a massive but short-lived military operation, arrested Maduro and his wife. They were returned and extradited to New York City. The legal issues here are complex and touch on matters of domestic and international law. Difficult decisions were made based on classified information that is not public, as well as legal opinions that have not been released. So my analysis here is necessarily incomplete and speculative. I don't have all the facts, and you probably have more facts than I do. Finally, I think it's useful to remember that these issues are not the sorts that courts will resolve. Rather, these matters fall to the political branches: the Congress and the president. I am thankful to be here as Congress performs its important role under the Constitution of providing oversight of the executive branch. Thank you for your attention.

Thank you, Professor. Mr. Camargo, you may begin.

Chairman Van Drew, Ranking Member Crockett, Ranking Member Raskin, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for your invitation to share my experience and offer my thoughts on recent American action against Venezuelan criminals. One of those criminals once accused me of being a terrorist. But today the real terrorist, Nicolas Maduro, is behind bars. I was born in Venezuela and soon experienced the failures of socialism. When I spoke out, I was accused of terrorism under a so-called law against hatred. I could have been thrown in jail for as many as 20 years. I escaped, but my family wasn't so lucky. My cousin was tortured and spent more than two years in political prison. I was blessed to legally immigrate to the United States and I was granted asylum. Today, I work at PragerU, where I promote American values. One value that made the United States the greatest country on earth is moral clarity. Ronald Reagan was quite clear when he called the Soviet Union an evil empire. And for that same reason, it is important to be clear today. Maduro was not simply a bad president or a wrong leader. He's an evil narco-terrorist who committed crimes against Americans. There are some here today who can testify to the legality of Operation Absolute Resolve. I want to testify to its necessity. Let me first explain why Maduro's capture serves American interests. The Chavez and Maduro regimes turned Venezuela from a long-time ally of the United States into a drug cartel. 250 tons of cocaine move through Venezuela each year under the protection of the regime itself, otherwise known as Cartel de los Soles, Cartel of the Suns. 30,000 Americans die from cocaine overdoses every single year. When a narco-regime floods our neighborhoods with dangerous drugs, American families pay the price. That is why the Department of Justice indicted Nicolas Maduro in 2020 for narco-terrorism. But drug trafficking was not Maduro's only crime. The regime established an official government conspiracy of sending violent criminals to the United States with a not-so-secret goal to subvert this country. Among them were members of the dangerous gang Tren de Aragua, who were responsible for armed robberies, sexual assaults, and the vicious murders of Laken Riley and of Jocelyn Nungaray. Make no mistake, this was not an accident. It was part of a deliberate regime strategy. Just ask Hugo "El Pollo" Carvajal. The head of Venezuela's military intelligence revealed the truth about drug trafficking. It was not about making money. Drugs were deliberately used as a weapon of mass destruction against the United States. Carvajal detailed the regime's collusion with Colombian guerrilla, Hezbollah terrorists, and Cuban intelligence. In other words, one of the architects of the policy itself revealed the truth. The ultimate goal was to destabilize these United States of America. That is reason enough to indict Nicolas Maduro, to capture him, and to bring him to justice. Anything less would have amounted to a dereliction of duty. American action in Venezuela, therefore, was not some rogue act of aggression. It was in defense of the sovereignty and security of the American people. Some suggest Venezuela also has a right to sovereignty, of self-determination. I agree. A majority of Venezuelans agree. But are those claiming to advocate for Venezuela talking about sovereignty of the Venezuelan people or about sovereignty of the regime? Too many describe Maduro as a legitimate president. He wasn't. Most international observers concluded elections were stolen in 2013, in 2018, and in 2024. He was not kidnapped. Maduro was a fugitive indicted by the U.S. Department of Justice who felt the long arm of the law. When we protested in Venezuela, some of us would carry the American flag. That flag right there. Because it has a very powerful meaning, something innate in each of us: freedom. Today, I have never seen Venezuelans so optimistic. If the country of my birth becomes free again, it would benefit both Venezuela and the United States. America would be stronger without a narco-terrorist base just a short flight from Miami. Our economy would be stronger, more prosperous alongside an ally who no longer does business with adversaries like China. There is no doubt America would be safer, stronger, and more prosperous with a free Venezuela. The capture of Nicolas Maduro was not only justified, it was necessary for the security of the American people. Thank you, and I look forward for your questions.

Thank you, Mr. Camargo. Next, Ms. D'Andrea.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Madam Ranking Member, Mr. Ranking Member, and distinguished members of this committee. My name is Gina D'Andrea. I serve as general counsel of the America First Policy Institute, and I'm here today to talk about the legal basis for the president's authority to take military action to protect the American people from external threats. As I'll explain, the president's authority in such situations rests on long-accepted constitutional grounds and has in fact been exercised by various presidents dating back to the founding fathers. First, a brief recap of what's going on in the Western Hemisphere. Evidence shows that the United States is confronted by a narco-terrorist network that operates within Venezuela. Under Nicolas Maduro, Venezuela has served as a hub for extra-hemispheric actors who are hostile to the United States, enabling the trafficking of drugs and criminals into our homeland. Maduro was indicted by a federal grand jury in the Southern District of New York on charges of narco-terrorism and conspiracy to import cocaine into the United States. Neither the United States, under both the Biden and Trump administrations, nor the European Union has recognized him as a legitimate head of state. In fact, under the prevailing norms of customary international law, even the United Nations would be hard-pressed to recognize Maduro's legitimacy. He lost the 2024 election, he refused to cede power, and no principle of international recognition, whether grounded in effective control or democratic legitimacy, can sustain a claim to lawful governing by a leader who holds office in defiance of his own electorate. He's been named by the Department of State as the official leader of the Cartel de los Soles and has used this power to weaponize an illegitimate mafia to traffic narcotics into American communities on an industrial scale. He's also alleged to have worked against U.S. interests with Iran, including potentially aiding Iranians in entering the United States under the illegal CHNV parole program that was in operation during the Biden administration. The evidence is clear: this is not a foreign policy dispute, it's the protection of the American people and the enforcement of American criminal law. The authority of the president under Article II of the Constitution is sufficient to support action to address these threats from America's neighbors. As commander in chief, the president bears the primary responsibility and truthfully the obligation to protect the American people and ensure national security. This authority to address external threats before they reach the homeland has bipartisan recognition dating back to the founding fathers. The administration's recent executive order designating the cartel networks as foreign terror organizations recognizes that these are not ordinary criminals and are instead paramilitary entities that pose a direct threat to the United States. This designation bolsters the president's authority to take action in defense of the American people. Turn to the strikes on the narco-trafficker vessels. Congress itself has designated the Department of War as the lead federal agency for detection and monitoring drug trafficking into the United States. The Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act vests federal jurisdiction over drug trafficking aboard vessels on the high seas. These strikes were carried out as a result of evidence showing such drug trafficking was taking place. More to the point, the commander in chief has the constitutional authority to protect the homeland. Striking vessels that evidence shows serve as instrumentalities of narco-terrorism is a lawful exercise of that power. Turn next to the capture of Maduro. Operation Absolute Resolve was not an act of war or regime change; it was a targeted law enforcement operation that used a whole-of-government approach to execute a federal arrest warrant. And it was not the first time the United States has done this. In 1989, the United States deployed military forces to apprehend General Noriega, the then-sitting dictator indicted on federal drug trafficking charges. Federal courts upheld jurisdiction and rejected his head-of-state immunity claims. Perhaps most relevant is that Maduro, like Noriega, enjoys no sovereign immunity because the United States does not recognize him as a legitimate head of state. Both of these operations draw further support from the president's constitutional authority over foreign affairs. What's more, the War Powers Resolution of 1973 expressly preserves the president's independent Article II authority. The administration complied with its procedural requirements. The Office of Legal Counsel has maintained across administrations of both Democrats and Republicans that the president may act without prior congressional authorization when the operation serves important national interests and does not rise to the level of a constitutional war. Congress has even appropriated counter-narcotics funds, designated the Department of War as the lead counter-drug agency, and a federal grand jury returned the very indictment this operation enforced. Members of this committee, the framers designed a Constitution to balance energy in the executive with accountability through Congress. These operations honor that design. The capture of Maduro that executed a federal warrant against a man no free nation recognizes as legitimate. Here are some brief facts. Maduro is a narco-terrorist who helped lead the so-called Cartel of the Suns. He advanced large-scale drug trafficking, he armed an illegitimate militia, solicited arms for a terrorist organization, and presided over unfree and unfair elections. This administration's actions were targeted, limited, and constitutionally grounded in over two centuries of executive practice. Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.

Thank you, Ms. D'Andrea. Mr. Padden, you may begin.

Chairman Van Drew, Ranking Member Crockett, Ranking Member Raskin, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you here today. Last September, I retired after 47 years of combined military and federal civilian service when the administration eliminated the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces component of the Department of Justice. I served as a deputy director and acting director of OCDETF, as it's known, for the last 17 years of my career. I served under 10 attorneys general and five presidents and nine administrations. Over the past five decades, each administration, both Republican and Democrat, made improvements to our ability to focus and coordinate our efforts and resources against drug trafficking threats. The counter-drug mission is non-partisan, and administrations from both parties were dedicated to increasing the depth and breadth of our nation's capabilities. Unfortunately, that is not the case today, and Americans are less safe than we were 15 months ago. This administration eliminated organizations and capabilities integral to the counter-drug mission. And it reduced or diverted mission-focused staffing and resources in this critically important space. It replaced lawful investigations with military targeting of suspected drug traffickers and pardoned at least one convicted drug trafficker who was also a corrupt foreign leader. I served for 12 years as a commissioned Marine Corps officer before joining the Department of Justice. At DOJ, I conducted task force investigations and prosecutions of Mexican and South American drug trafficking networks. After leading the Criminal Division's Narcotic and Dangerous Drug Section, I became the deputy director of OCDETF. Established in 1982, OCDETF was the largest and most successful anti-crime task force in the nation. And it was the centerpiece of the Attorney General's strategy to reduce the supply of illicit and dangerous drugs. Our mission was to dismantle and disrupt transnational criminal networks through fulsome enterprise investigations. OCDETF received bipartisan support for over four decades. Before it was eliminated at the end of last year, OCDETF had national reach with thousands of prosecutor-led, case-specific multi-agency task forces operating across the nation in every federal judicial district. In its 43-year history, OCDETF task forces dismantled or significantly disrupted over 21,000 criminal organizations, seized $13.4 billion in cash and property, and over 870,000 weapons. OCDETF prosecutions convicted over 321,000 defendants. It was OCDETF task forces that conducted the investigations and brought the drug trafficking indictments of two corrupt foreign politicians. Through our work, former President Juan Orlando Hernández of Honduras was convicted at trial, only to be later pardoned by President Trump. Through our work, former President Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela was indicted on drug charges in New York. But despite these successes, the administration dismantled OCDETF last year. OCDETF's Fusion Center was a unique operational intelligence center that brought together case information and intelligence from a wide range of agencies to help the task forces in the field better illuminate criminal networks so they could better coordinate their efforts to dismantle them. With more than 670 million records, the Fusion Center's holdings represented the nation's largest repository of federal law enforcement investigative reporting and financial data. With the elimination of OCDETF, the future of this capability is in jeopardy. I served in the White House during the first Trump administration. In that role, I was the senior advisor to the drug czar on drug interdiction matters, and I drafted congressionally mandated plans and strategies. The current administration's approach to maritime drug smuggling is ineffective. Sinking boats and killing the crews and sending the evidence to the bottom of the sea is not an effective attack on drug cartels. Interdictions at sea seize physical evidence and arrest mariners, allow law enforcement to expand their investigations and identify additional co-conspirators. Electronic devices can be searched and mariners can be interrogated, and that additional information can be exploited. A reason claimed for taking these actions was to stem the flow of fentanyl to the U.S. However, no evidence that maritime interdictions result in fentanyl seizures. Fentanyl arrives in the U.S. predominantly across the U.S.-Mexico border. South American maritime drug shipments are predominantly cocaine, and those boats departing from the north coast of Venezuela are primarily headed to markets in North Africa and Europe. Sinking those boats has no effect on the U.S. drug supply. Military strikes are not an effective first solution to drug enforcement. Most importantly, preemptively killing mariners, even those suspected of smuggling drugs, is a violation of U.S. and international law. Despite the rhetoric that the elimination of drug cartels is a national priority, administration actions indicate that the opposite is true. The administration can change direction and reestablish the capabilities, staffing, and structure necessary to be effective in dismantling these cartels. Until it does, Americans will be less safe. Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.

Thank you, Mr. Padden. We'll now proceed with questions and the five-minute rule will be in effect. And I guess we are going to start with the gentleman from Georgia. That's you, Mr. Johnson, right?

I think I know who I am, Mr. Chairman.

I always like to bring levity in it. Hank, you look surprised. I don't know if they warned you or not, but...

I thought you were going to go first, your side gets to go.

No, I'm tricky, man, you never know.

I'm always ready, though. Tell me, Mr. Camargo, upon what facts do you conclude that President Maduro was a drug dealer?

Federal indictments, the testimony...

Well, an indictment is not proof, that's just an allegation. Sure, but what other facts do you have?

We have the reports from the DEA. We also have testimonies from people...

What reports from the DEA?

The DEA reported that the Cartel de los Soles, Cartel of the Suns, was operating in Venezuela.

So how do you connect that to Nicolás Maduro?

So it's a totalitarian regime where he controls every single thing in the country.

So what you're doing is you're coming in here spouting off conclusions that you've heard, which fit a nice little narrative that you're here... You know who Hugo "El Pollo" Carvajal is? Well, I'm going to move on, Mr. Camargo. And Ms. D'Andrea, what organization is it, is it America First Policy Institute?

That's correct, sir.

Isn't that the organization founded by the notorious racist Stephen Miller? Yes or no?

No.

That's not the one founded...

No, it's actually...

Oh, so you're not connected to Stephen Miller?

We are not officially connected to Stephen Miller.

Well, I'm glad to know that. I was hoping that you would not, that that was not the same organization. Let me ask you, Professor Blackman, now, the United States used its awesome military power to go into Venezuela and extract President Maduro and then lodged him in a jail up in New York to await trial, correct?

Correct.

Now, you do agree, Professor Blackman, that the United States is bound to the treaties that it signs with other nations and which are ratified by Congress, correct?

Yes.

And the UN Charter is a treaty that was ratified by Congress in 1945, is that correct?

Yes.

And the UN Charter provides that states must, quote, "refrain in their international relations from the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state." Professor Blackman, do you contend that the capture and kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro was not a violation of international law?

All right, so there's two points, and thank you for the question. The first is the executive branch has long contended that a treaty into itself cannot violate the president's inherent constitutional powers.

Okay, so the president has the ability to contravene any treaties that have been ratified by the United States Congress, is that your opinion?

Well, I think what the executive branch said is that they will not find themselves bound...

I'm talking about your opinion.

I think it's actually the case that Congress through a treaty...

That the president can unilaterally disavow and disobey treaties that have been ratified between this nation and other nations and have been ratified by Congress, is that your statement?

Right, under the supremacy clause of the Constitution, treaties are the supreme law of the land, but also the president has powers unto himself. I think the president always asserted broad powers unto himself and Congress...

You're not answering my question.

No, the answer is yes. I think...

You think the president, you think the executive has the power to annul treaties that this nation is bound to by ratification by Congress?

I think where a treaty intrudes on the president's power, and especially where there's no enforcing legislation binding the president...

So you're talking about creating the same kind of place where Venezuela is, where Maduro did whatever he wanted to do. That's the kind of place that you escaped from, Mr. Camargo, and it's ironic that you would be here to...

Can I speak?

Well, hold on. It'd be, it's ironic that you would be here to protest what happened in that country when the same thing is happening in this country and we have constitutional scholars like Professor Blackman who are aiding and abetting the slide towards authoritarianism. But let me ask this last question of Mr. Padden. Mr. Padden, Juan Orlando Hernández, convicted of trafficking in 800,000 pounds of cocaine into the United States. He was not extracted by the military. He was turned over by the Honduran government to the US for trial and prosecution, and then less than a year into his 40-plus year sentence, he was pardoned by the same president that Ms. D'Andrea is here to defend, I guess, even though he is not even adhering to his own America First policy. This panel, with your exception, Mr. Padden, is a sham, and this hearing is a sham, and with that I yield back.

I thank the gentleman from Georgia. With that, we will recognize the gentleman from Kansas, Mr. Schmidt.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Padden, I'd like to pick that up. Did I understand your testimony correctly that the organization you worked for, which is now disbanded or defunded or no longer happening, did you say in your opening testimony that you were responsible for obtaining the indictment of Mr. Maduro?

I said that OCDETF task forces did the work that led to the indictment of Mr. Maduro. That was an OCDETF task force and the prosecutors, agents, analysts, and so forth doing OCDETF work.

And that was in 2020 that was unsealed?

Yes, sir.

Was it obtained before that, do you know?

The indictment was obtained before it was unsealed. I presume it was, yes, sir.

Yeah. Do you know after the true bill was returned and the indictment was unsealed, was there an arrest warrant issued for Mr. Maduro?

I personally don't know it, but I would assume it was.

Do you know what steps were taken by your organization or any of these task forces to actually execute that arrest warrant during the five years between when it was unsealed and when you left the organization?

I don't.

Very well. Professor Blackman, let me ask you then a question on that because that's puzzled me. If we had a valid arrest warrant that as far as I know was properly issued by a federal grand jury, a judge ordered federal agents to take Mr. Maduro into custody, is there an obligation on the part of the federal government to at least make some reasonable attempt to execute that order?

Yes, and I think the leading precedent actually involves Manuel Noriega back in 1989. The United States seized Noriega from Panama. He was holed up in a diplomatic building. And at the time, William Barr, the future attorney general, wrote an opinion saying that when you need to execute a valid warrant to arrest someone for an indictment, you can use military force. In other words, that the force is there to protect, imagine we just sent FBI agents in a boat to Caracas and said, "Okay, walk into the country and arrest Maduro." They'd be killed in five seconds. So the purpose of this military force is to protect the FBI agents who are effecting the lawful arrest.

Well, and isn't it right, Professor, that the president has a constitutional obligation to take care that the law be faithfully executed?

Absolutely.

And doesn't the law authorize the arrest warrant that to direct it agents to go take Mr. Maduro into custody?

Absolutely. I mean, Maduro's indicted in March of 2020. There was no action taken over the past six years to get him until Trump started ramping up the force when his second administration began.

You posited the absurdity of federal civilian law enforcement officers showing up in a boat and saying we're here to get Mr. Maduro, but even before that, I mean, there are processes, there are procedures, there are extradition processes. I actually don't know if we had during this time an extradition treaty in fact with Venezuela, but is it reasonable to think that those processes where we go to a foreign government and say please hand us the individual indicted are going to operate when the individual indicted is the head of the foreign government?

No, and especially in this case where the United States disputes the election. I think everyone agrees he's not the legitimate president of Venezuela. So you're asking someone who's not really the head of state to surrender himself, it's not going to happen.

So the president made a judgment, which you've described here, though not attributed in this case, that the use of military force was necessary in aid of execution of the lawful warrant that he had a duty to execute, is that correct?

Yes.

So what's the alternative? If that is in fact correct, and I don't think anybody here is second-guessing the president's judgment or his military advisors' judgments that it wasn't going to work to say pretty please and it wasn't going to work to send some FBI agents in a boat, therefore we needed to have a safety bubble provided by the United States military in order for the law enforcement agencies to do what they had been lawfully ordered to do, which is take this defendant into custody. What's the alternative?

The alternative is do nothing and just let an indictment...

And that's what we did for five years, isn't it?

Exactly.

Yeah, that's right. You know, nobody's talked about here and maybe it's not applicable because I think it only applies as a matter of law when there are no other legal authorities and here I think there are plenty of legal authorities the president acted pursuant to. But let's assume even in that case that the interesting arguments on the other side are wrong. I remember learning of something called the doctrine of necessity that sometimes it is necessary to do what must be done in order to carry out the commands of the law, is that correct?

Yes.

And if there was no other alternative here and the president of the United States was under a lawful order to go take this man into custody, what else was he supposed to do?

He had to take some actions. I think he had the authority to do what he did.

And if he hadn't, wouldn't he be subject to criticism by folks that don't like him that he had failed his constitutional obligations?

He probably would have been, yes.

Chairman, I yield back.

I thank the gentleman from Kansas. With that, I will recognize the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Raskin, the ranking member.

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. And Ms. D'Andrea, I'm moved by some of your political statements. One of the things you said at the end of last year was, "If any political figure or party can direct federal law enforcement against its critics, we no longer live under the rule of law." Do you remember when you wrote that?

Yes, sir.

So do you reject Donald Trump's very public orders to the Department of Justice and the FBI to investigate and prosecute James Comey, Letitia James, Adam Schiff, a bunch of other colleagues including Jason Crow?

I would say if there's reason and there's evidence to investigate those people, then he's absolutely right to call for it. If not, then he doesn't need to call for that.

Wait, you said if any political figure can direct federal law enforcement against its critics, we no longer live under the rule of law.

I think there's a difference between someone being critical and someone doing something that violates the rule of law.

Okay, but all of it, I mean, the reason why all the grand juries refused to render indictments, the reason why a number of prosecutors resigned or were forced out of their positions were because of the obvious point that Donald Trump is attacking them because he perceives them to be political critics or adversaries of his. And so it would seem to me, just to apply your rule to the facts of the situation, Donald Trump is absolutely taking us outside of the rule of law. I mean, I don't mean to embarrass you in any way, but I liked your statement of principle and I'm just wondering whether you're willing to interpret it in a completely obvious and objective way.

I would say that my interpretation is objective and I think that without having all the facts about each of these individuals and each of the allegations allegedly, you know, against them, I can't speak generally to the president's statement. I stick by my original statement.

Okay, so if any president, whether it was Maduro or Trump or Juan Orlando Hernández, says I want you to go and investigate and prosecute these 20 political enemies of mine, your position would basically be agnostic, well, let's wait and see what happens in the investigation? Is that right? I mean, doesn't that defeat the whole point of your statement?

Respectfully, sir, that's not right. That's not what I mean, that's not what I intended to say. What...

All right, well, let me ask about another one. I wish we had all day because you've said some interesting things which I agree with at the level of generality at which you stated them. For example, you said that Maduro had refused to cede power, I think it was in the 2024 election, and you said that it's impossible to sustain a claim to lawful governance by a leader who holds office in defiance of his own electorate. Well, that really made me think about what happened in 2020 when Donald Trump claimed that he won the election, but the Congress found that he had not won the election, 60 federal and state courts rejected every claim of electoral fraud and corruption, but not only did he claim that he won it, he continues to claim that he won it. So I hope you would repudiate that.

Thank you for the question. I would say that he was, he ceded power. He gave in. President Biden was sworn in and was the president of the United States, so he did not illegally hold on to power in the manner that President Maduro, illegitimate dictator, did.

Oh, I see. In other words, because the coup didn't work and the violent insurrection didn't succeed in overturning the election, then you think it was all right what he did.

Respectfully, that's not what I said. I said that...

But that's what I said, though. In other words, you seem to be saying that because his attempt to destroy Joe Biden's Electoral College majority, which he won by more than 7 million votes, 306 to 232 in the Electoral College, because his efforts to overturn that on the floor of Congress and with a violent insurrection, then he complied with what you were stating as a basic rule of law principle.

Respectfully, sir, I think there's a difference between asking whether fraud occurred and refusing to cede power once it's been made clear to you that it has not.

Well, what's inciting a violent insurrection against your own government?

I'm not sure I understand what you mean, what...

Well, you're saying there's one thing about asking a question, for example, going to 60 different federal and state courts to try to get a ruling, but once you've lost all of those, you think it's legitimate within the rule of law and democracy to incite a violent insurrection as Donald Trump was impeached for?

Sir, I appreciate the question. I don't have a clear answer for you on that. I think the evidence...

Okay. Well, we can discuss, we can discuss it later. And I thank you for your statement of principles, which I think are often quite lucid, but I wish that you would apply them evenhandedly across the board. It might be tough from the job that you're in right now. I yield back to you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman.

Yes.

Would you entertain unanimous consent requests?

Without objection.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to insert in the record the indictment in the United States of America versus Nicolás Maduro Moros, formerly sealed, the superseding indictment. I would ask to insert in the record a document titled Rubio: This Is Our Hemisphere and President Trump Will Not Allow Our Security to Be Threatened. I would ask to insert a news report titled How Cocaine and Corruption Led to the Indictment of Maduro. I would ask to insert another news report titled No, Trump's Order to Snatch Maduro Was Not Illegal Nor Unconstitutional. And I would ask to insert in the record another opinion piece titled Yes, Trump's Venezuela Moves Are Legal.

Without objection.

Thank you.

Recognize the gentleman from Missouri, Dr. Onder.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Since his first day returning to office, President Trump made it clear that stopping narcoterrorism would be a top priority, issuing an executive order designating drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations, which elevated the fight against these networks to a national security issue. The commitment culminated in Operation Absolute Resolve and the arrest of Nicolás Maduro. Under Maduro's regime, Venezuela had become a hub for narcoterrorism, funneling over 200 metric tons of cocaine annually through the Cartel of the Suns. This cartel, deeply intertwined with the Venezuelan government, has directly contributed to the deaths of over 30,000 Americans annually from cocaine overdoses. Maduro's regime also actively collaborated with foreign adversaries, including Iran and Hezbollah, in ways that threatened the stability and security of the United States. President Trump acted within his constitutional authority, which is supported by historical precedent. From the capture of Manuel Noriega to targeted strikes on drug smuggling vessels, the president has had both the responsibility and the authority to act against legitimate threats to American safety. The operation was not only compliant with domestic law but also consistent with international norms, as the legitimate Venezuelan government supported Maduro's capture. Mr. Blackman, can you elaborate on the distinction between a law enforcement operation and an act of war, particularly in the context of Operation Absolute Resolve?

Sure. And relevant precedent here comes from the Obama administration. If you recall in 2011 or so, there was a massive bombing campaign against Libya that went on for a very long time. And there was an effort to try to stop President Obama. And the Obama administration said this does not rise to the level of war. These are just hostilities. There are no boots on the ground. There's no risk of American service members being injured. And the Trump administration basically relied on the Obama precedent. This was an operation that lasted a few hours. There were no boots on the ground. I think there was some harm to American service members, which was tragic, but this was not an obvious war. And because there's no war, they said, for example, there was no obligation to comply with the War Powers Resolution. This is a limited hostility to support a law enforcement operation to enforce the indictment Mr. Schmidt had been asking about a few minutes ago.

What would you say to critics who argue that the operation violated international law, particularly the UN's Charter on prohibition of use of force?

So I appreciate my exchange with Mr. Johnson on this one a few minutes ago. It's true that almost 60 years ago, the United States ratified the UN treaty. But the way I've always understood that is when the Congress ratifies a treaty, they don't quietly give away the president's powers. That's not something that's done quietly. Article II. Yeah, the Article II powers. I mean, Congress doesn't cede its sovereignty to foreign nations very often, at least not with express language. So when the president interprets Article II, Section 4 of the UN treaty, they say, well, would we assume Congress gave away this power? No. So I retain this power. So I don't think that the Article II of the UN treaty is an obstacle to the president using his constitutional authority.

Thank you. Ms. D'Andrea, how did the designation of the Cartel of the Suns as a foreign terrorist organization expand the president's authority to act against Maduro?

Thank you, sir. It broadens his ability to take action. So it basically says that the State Department makes this designation and he is now allowed to take whatever action is necessary to combat these cartels.

And can you explain how Maduro's regime fostered U.S. adversaries like Hezbollah and Iran and the threat that posed to American safety?

Absolutely. So in addition to the drug trafficking that we've been discussing here today, there's evidence that they have been working very closely with the Iranian regime. You mentioned Hezbollah as well. A lot of this happened in the immigration context where we had Iranians coming into Venezuela, being given Venezuelan passports, and then being admitted into the United States under the Biden CHNV parole program.

Despicable. Yeah, well, one of my colleagues harassed you about Trump inciting a coup or an insurrection. President Trump gave a speech in which he said march peacefully and patriotically and support members of Congress and support members of Congress who are adjudicating the fairness of this election. So no matter how many times you say coup or how many times you say insurrection, it doesn't make it so. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

Thank the gentleman from Missouri. I recognize the ranking member, Ms. Crockett.

Okay, I don't know where to begin. So I'm going to start with Tupac. We're going to start with the fact that Tupac famously said, for those of you that didn't necessarily listen to rap, that we've got money for war but we can't feed the poor. And the reason that I bring this up is for two reasons. Number one, in order to get Maduro, the estimated cost is $3 billion. I can guarantee you that a lot of Americans would say, yes, there's a valid warrant and things like that, but for the cost of $3 billion, let's put our money somewhere else. Number one. Number two, Professor, you talked about the fact that if there wasn't the loss of life as it relates to our service members, or if this was just kind of quick boots on the ground for a second, then it wasn't war. So just answer this question for me. Would you consider what is taking place currently in the Middle East a war? Because we continue to have our sons and daughters returned in caskets to the United States. That's a yes or no.

No, the analysis for Iran's different.

Oh, okay. Okay. So you agree with me then. Yes?

I didn't say that.

Okay. It's different analysis. So I'm just going to go with you agree with me because this is clearly a war and it's unconstitutional. That is the bottom line. And frankly, as it relates to Venezuela, I think that we still will have some time to determine exactly how bad it is. Because imagine for two seconds that you had fishermen and sailors that were coming from the United States and Venezuela all of a sudden started bombing our people saying, oh no, no, no, you're bringing guns. Because let me be clear, America does their share, fair share of nonsense in other countries. We tend to supply everybody with the guns. We flood this world with guns everywhere. Right? So let's say they said, you know what, we don't want all those guns going to the gangsters in our communities, so we're just going to start blowing people up. And frankly, legally, that may work for them. You know why? We have a Constitution and not everybody does. And so it is offensive to sit here and engage in this conversation as someone who practiced criminal law. And my God, everyone that I had, no matter what they were accused of, even if they were accused of capital murder, they were given an opportunity to actually show up in court and face their accusations, not be killed. So the justification, like I don't understand why we are trying to make it partisan. It should not be partisan to just go and blow up these boats. Are you saying, Professor, that you believe that blowing up these boats because somebody believes... Let's, you know what, let me do it this way. Let's say they are drug traffickers. Do you believe that it is constitutional for the United States to blow up people that are accused of being drug traffickers?

It's not going to be a yes or no question if I could take...

Okay, then I'm going to just, I'm going to stop you there because I only got so much time. And Professor, you know, I was really loving on you because you came from South Texas, which is down in Houston, not too far from University of Houston where I got my law degree. But it is very clear that it's unconstitutional for us in the United States. Let me give y'all another issue that I don't understand if y'all see it the way that I do. There's this little thing called the Epstein files. There's a lot of people that have been found liable, charged, all kinds of stuff from Prince Andrew and Peter Mandelson, from Norwegian officials, the former prime minister and the former ambassador, all these different people. Right? Some would argue, especially since there was international trafficking that was taking place, some would argue that our president whose name is found over and over and over and over and over in these files may have engaged in, say, child trafficking, sex trafficking. They may come to that conclusion. Now, with that being the understanding, if there are other countries that believe because they believe in actually holding people accountable, okay? So they say, you know what, there were some girls from England or wherever because there were people from different countries and they say, you know what, we're going to just come and we're going to drop in on America, we're going to bomb America, we're going to kill civilians in America because you know what, we have a warrant for his arrest. Whether it's for the child sex trafficking in the Epstein files because America doesn't want to do their job, or whether we're talking about violating international law, whether we're talking about going and just randomly killing people. I can tell you that every single one of you that is sticking up for him right now would be screaming from the rooftops. The analysis has to be the same. I am so offended that I am still paying my doggone student loans for law school and it seems like none of it matters nowadays because seemingly what we do is we twist the law to justify. The analysis is the same. If you would be outraged if they came and bombed our country to go after him to arrest him, if you're listening, that I don't know, I don't know if people are doing this. But if they decided to do that because of the Epstein files or because of violating international law, you all would be against it. So we should be against it right now. Thank you, I yield.

I thank the gentlelady. That was a lot. So let me, I'm going to bring this back to what I believe I'm going to bring it back to and then I do have some questions for you. First of all, history has provided us with lessons that this was legal action. We've learned that President Barack Obama, a Democrat, took similar action and it was found that it was appropriate. People might have disagreed with the action, but that it was legal. There's no question that drug supplies are down now, that drug use is down, but I would think again, just trying to get the common sense, maybe it's a good thing to try to stop it when we can at the source. What we do typically is we let it come in, people get very sick, they die, we spend billions of dollars trying to make them whole again. A whole lot of times it doesn't work and it fails and we have a permanent destruction of a whole class of people in our country and it's wrong. If you can stop these drug... You know what Americans would think? Geez, if you can stop them at the borders before they come in, that would be a good thing. It's also clear that he was indicted years ago, Nicolás Maduro, and we did nothing for five years. Why was that? Nobody can give me a good answer for that. It is also clear, and I know the gentleman from Georgia brought up and he asked you, Mr. Camargo, you know, how did we think that there was any connection between this illegal president in Venezuela who usurped authority, who got power by violence, and there was no connection with him and drug cartels? Yeah, there was. Everybody agrees with that. Most Democrats agree with that, Republicans agree with it. So frankly, and I love the gentleman from Georgia, I do, he's a nice man, but I don't know where that came from because that connection is absolutely there. I guess the last thing that I would say is that I think we've got to get down to is it legal? Yes, it is. Is it going to help us stop people from getting sick in our country? It is. Come on, let's talk real language. And I say this all the time, I always like to kid around, I'm a dentist, I'm not an attorney, okay? And it gets down to basic stuff, man. Take care of our people. We're killing them. These drugs are killing them. The amount of cocaine that was pushed into this country, it's our babies. We got to stop it anyway we can that's legal and it was legal. So I got some quick questions. Mr. Camargo, in your testimony you stated very clearly that Nicolás Maduro was not simply a bad president, by the way, an illegal president, a bastard to be honest with you, an awful, awful man. He's an evil narcoterrorist. I got a yes or no question for you. Was the Venezuelan government under Maduro functioning as a criminal enterprise tied to drug trafficking networks? Yes or no.

Yes, 100%. Yes, 100 percent.

Okay. Mr. Camargo, you also testified that 200 to 250 metric tons of cocaine move through Venezuela every single year under the protection of this, of these regime officials, yes or no?

Yes.

And yes or no, does that make the Maduro regime one of the largest state-enabled drug trafficking operations in the entire Western Hemisphere, yes or no?

Yes.

Okay. Mr. Camargo, you also pointed out that Caracas is about 1,400 miles away from Miami, correct?

Yes.

And so to this question, yes or no, if a narco-terrorist regime operates that close to the United States of America, does it pose a direct national security threat to the United States of America and to the American people, yes or no?

Yes.

Professor Josh Blackman, I'm sorry, I didn't want to get too familiar here.

I'm from Staten Island, we're close.

So you're good, okay, there we go, that's a good thing. Let me ask a simple question: is the Western Hemisphere safer when a narco-terrorist regime tied to cartels and hostile foreign powers is removed from power, are we safer?

I think so.

Yeah, I definitely think so. Mr. Padden, the harder questions for you. Yes or no, was Nicolás Maduro indicted by a federal grand jury in the United States of America for narco-terrorism before this operation occurred?

He was indicted on other drug charges and weapons charges before the operation, there's been a superseding indictment I believe since then.

Okay, but he was indicted then as well, correct?

Correct.

And by the way, that's the difference in the ranking member, I respect her, but she brought up the fact that, you know, it would be just like coming into our country. We keep forgetting he was indicted in our country, he was indicted by our country. The sealed indictment was opened up. So Mr. Padden, you argue that these actions made America less safe, what we've done. And I'm going to ask you a hard question, I'm going to ask you to answer it: if the United States had done nothing, as we were doing nothing, and allowed an indicted narco-terrorist running a drug network just 1,400 miles from Florida, moving the kind of drugs in that he was, if he remained in power, would that have made America safer if he remained in power?

It's too soon to tell whether it would or not, sir.

Would that make, just allowing him in power, you're arguing with me and you're saying that that could make it safer in America?

I'm not sure we'd be less safe than we currently are if he were still in power.

Respectfully, that is where I totally and fundamentally disagree with you. I thank you for your answers though. My time is up as well, I will recognize the gentleman, okay, let me just before I do that let me see who's up, yes, okay, you have a yes, without objection.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have three articles to submit for the record. Libyan bombing unconstitutional, Republicans warn Obama, this was from March 22, 2011. Trump pushes Justice Department to prosecute his political opponents, that's September 21, 2025. And the ex-president whom Trump pardoned flooded America with cocaine, that's about Juan Orlando Hernández from Honduras.

Without objection. I recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gill.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding today's hearing, we certainly appreciate it, and thank you to the witnesses for taking the time to come out here. I for one am certainly thankful that we have a president who is willing and capable of identifying a clear, direct, and narrow strategic interest for the United States and pursuing it aggressively, appropriately, and at times when necessary with overwhelming force. As we know, this was an illegitimate dictatorship in the Western Hemisphere in our own backyard that was destabilizing our region, operating as a hub for some of the most violent and ruthless and dangerous criminal cartels in the entire world, as well as for other of America's foreign adversaries that were creating migratory pressure that America has a clear and obvious strategic interest in tamping down, so I'm glad that we have a president who is looking out for us. Thank you again to the witnesses for being here. The Government Accountability Office has recognized Venezuela as a major drug transit country and asserts Venezuela was responsible for about 10 to 13 percent of global cocaine movement. Further, Venezuela hosts multiple transnational gangs including the foreign terrorist organization designated Tren de Aragua and the specially designated global terrorist organization Cártel de los Soles. The drug cartels' trafficking of fentanyl and other narcotics kill tens of thousands of Americans annually and is therefore and rightfully considered by the White House as an armed conflict. Mr. Blackman, I want to start with you: how many drug smuggling vessels would you estimate passed freely over water to the United States before President Trump assumed office?

I have no idea, I'm guessing it's a very large number.

Very large number, we'd have thousands as far as we know. Could you just walk me through how the Maduro regime would aid drug trafficking to the United States?

Well, I think the allegation is that the Maduro regime basically operated as almost like a coordinator of all these various entities including Tren de Aragua, and this is basically the predicate of the president's decision to impose the boat strikes and which I think is closely linked to the decision to arrest Maduro.

And as we know, President Biden's open border policies allowed millions of people into our country that were totally unvetted from all over the globe to come into our United States and petition for dubious claims for asylum, claims that were dubious at best. Recognizing that kind of opportunity, I think Maduro opened his prisons and expelled thousands of criminals from Venezuela knowing many of them would make their way to the United States to set up criminal enterprises here rather than there. Biden's Venezuela temporary protected status designation granted quasi-legal status for all Venezuelans including criminals who make it to the United States. Between March and September 2021 alone, U.S. Border Patrol encountered nearly 47,000 Venezuelans, rising to more than 187,000 in fiscal year 2022. About a million Venezuelans are estimated to be in the United States as of 2026, this year. To put that into perspective, there were about 28 million people living in Venezuela in 2024, that means that a significant portion of their population lives in the United States. Ms. D'Andrea, thank you again for being here: were there any foreign state sponsors of terrorism active in Venezuela?

I believe the evidence shows that there was, yes.

And in what geopolitical adversaries were they associated with?

There were Iranians and Hezbollah, I believe.

Right, that's right. Do you think that these terrorist groups use Venezuelan trafficker contacts to smuggle themselves or other terrorists into the United States?

Absolutely.

Absolutely. And that made the United States less safe, you would say, wouldn't you?

Absolutely.

I agree, and I think the American people agree as well, and I think most of them are pretty satisfied that we have a president again who is pursuing our interests in our region and doing so aggressively and legally. So with that said, Mr. Chairman, I've got a variety of unanimous consent requests if that's all right.

Without objection.

First of all, an article from the National Review by John Yoo, the Trump administration's actions in Venezuela are constitutional.

Without objection.

An article from AEI, also by John Yoo, the long history of presidential discretion.

Without objection.

Article from CBS News, María Corina Machado says Maduro capture will go down in history as the day justice defeated tyranny.

Without objection.

Article from Fox News, Rubio vows to eliminate Hezbollah, Iran operations from Venezuela after Maduro capture.

Without objection.

Document from the White House designating cartels and other organizations as foreign terrorist organizations and specially designated global terrorists.

Without objection.

Another document from the White House designation of international cartels, a fact sheet.

Without objection.

Document from the Department of the Treasury, Treasury sanctions Venezuelan cartel headed by Maduro.

Without objection.

Another article, quote, Admiral saw alleged drug boat strike survivors as legitimate targets, defense official says.

Without objection.

That's it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I thank the gentleman.

Oh, sorry, I've got one more too if that's all right.

Without objection.

Thank you kindly, Mr. Chairman. This is from the New York Times, January 7, 2026, headline: Maduro is gone but repression in Venezuela has intensified, the sprawling political security and intelligence apparatus that propped up Maduro's strongman rule is still in place and day-to-day life is getting worse.

Without objection.

I've got a UC.

Without objection.

This one is from March 2, 2026, Trump's war on Iran violates international law and U.S. Constitution, war crimes prosecutor Reed Brody. I have another one, it's from January 2026, it says Maduro is gone but his regime is intact.

Without objection.

I have another one, this one is from March 16, 2026, number of U.S. troops wounded in Iran war surpasses 200 across seven countries.

Without objection.

And one more, this one is from 12/18 of 25, it says appropriators backed a crime-fighting unit, DOJ closed it anyway.

Without objection. So that concludes today's hearing. I want to thank our witnesses, all of them, for appearing before the subcommittee today. We do appreciate your time. Without objection all members will have five legislative days to submit additional written questions for the witnesses or additional materials for the record, and without objection, this hearing is adjourned.