President Donald Trump’s decision to limit advance notification to Congress before the operation targeting Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro has sparked debate in Washington. Administration officials say the move was driven by national security concerns and the need to protect American lives during a highly sensitive mission.
According to sources familiar with the matter, even the congressional leaders known as the “Gang of Eight” were informed only after the operation had already begun. The administration intentionally avoided advance briefings while U.S. aircraft and special operations forces were already in motion toward Caracas.
Officials say secrecy was essential. The mission relied on precise timing, unpredictable weather conditions, and complete operational surprise. Any premature disclosure, they argue, could have compromised the effort and placed U.S. personnel at serious risk.
Supporters of the decision note that the executive branch routinely conducts arrests without notifying Congress in advance. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Tom Cotton defended the administration’s approach, explaining that Congress is not alerted before federal authorities arrest drug traffickers, cyber criminals, or terrorism suspects — even in high-profile cases.
Cotton said the same standard applies when the United States acts against foreign individuals who have already been indicted under American law. He also pointed out that leaks remain a persistent concern on Capitol Hill, particularly during sensitive national security operations.
Critics, however, raised constitutional objections. Senate Intelligence Committee Vice Chairman Mark Warner argued that Congress should play a larger role in approving military actions involving foreign leaders. He warned that unilateral decisions could have long-term consequences beyond the immediate mission.
Warner expressed concern that U.S. actions might be cited by adversarial powers to justify aggressive behavior elsewhere, arguing that the use of military force demands careful oversight and deliberation.
The Trump administration pushed back strongly on that interpretation. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said lawmakers were notified immediately after the mission concluded and stressed that advance notice would have endangered the operation.
Rubio explained that the mission’s timing was never fixed in advance. Weather conditions and other operational triggers determined when the action could proceed, making it impossible to provide meaningful pre-notification.
“At its core,” Rubio said, “this was the lawful arrest of individuals already indicted by American courts.” He added that early disclosure could have alerted hostile actors and put American service members in harm’s way.
President Trump echoed those concerns, noting that sensitive intelligence shared too widely has a history of leaking. In missions involving national security, he argued, discretion is not optional — it is essential.
Administration officials maintain that the decision was not about avoiding oversight, but about ensuring mission success. From their perspective, protecting operational security, preserving surprise, and safeguarding American lives outweighed the risks of advance notification.