Federal law enforcement personnel stand watch outside the Metropolitan Detention Center as they await the arrival of captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, Saturday, Jan. 3, 2026, in New York. (Yuki Iwamura/AP)
Like other U.S. presidents, Trump can cite guidance used by then-President George H.W. Bush and others to argue Maduro's arrest was made within the "national interest" or to protect U.S. persons and property.
Despite near-certain challenges from Maduro – who would likely argue any U.S. arrest in Venezuela is illegal, echoing Manuel Noriega’s failed strategy decades ago – experts say Trump’s Justice Department would have little trouble citing court precedent and prior Office of Legal Counsel guidance to justify his arrest and removal.
U.S. presidents have long enjoyed a wider degree of authority on foreign affairs issues – including acting unilaterally to order extraterritorial arrests. Like other U.S. presidents, Trump can cite guidance published in the late 1980s to argue Maduro's arrest was made within the "national interest" or to protect U.S. persons and property.
Protesters gather outside City Hall in Houston, Texas, on Jan. 10, 2026, for a demonstration against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). (Reginald Mathalone/NurPhoto via Getty Images)
Though Trump himself has not cited a legal justification for the invasion, senior administration officials have, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, who described Maduro's arrest respectively, as a mission to indict two "fugitives of justice," and as a "joint military and law enforcement raid."
In Minnesota, next steps for Trump are a bit more fraught.
Trump's National Guard deployment efforts were stymied by the Supreme Court in December, after the high court halted Trump's National Guard deployments under Title 10.
Trump had deployed the federalized troops to Illinois and Oregon last year to protect ICE personnel. But the high court issued an interim order rejecting Trump's bid, noting that under Title 10, the administration could not federalize the National Guard until it first showed they tried to authorize the regular military to enforce the laws but could not do so.
Some court watchers have noted that the ruling essentially closes off alternatives for Trump to act.
Instead, Trump could opt to enact his Article II "protective powers" domestically via a more sweeping and extreme alternative.
MIKE DAVIS: WHAT IS HAPPENING IN MINNESOTA IS WHY WE HAVE THE INSURRECTION ACT
Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh are seen at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 20, 2025, in Washington, D.C. (Chip Somodevilla/Pool/AFP via Getty Images)
This includes the use of the Insurrection Act to call up active-duty U.S. troops and order them deployed to Minnesota and elsewhere.
The Insurrection Act is a broad tool that gives presidents the authority to deploy military forces in the U.S. when "unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion" make it "impracticable to enforce the laws."
Critics note it is a powerful, far-reaching statute that could grant Trump an expansive set of powers to act domestically in ways that are not reviewable by Congress or by the courts.
Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard Law professor and former U.S. Assistant Attorney General, noted this possibility in a recent chat with former White House counsel Robert Bauer. By "closing off this other statute," he said, the Supreme Court "may have, some argue, driven the president in the direction of the Insurrection Act because this other source of authority was not available."
Trump allies, for their part, have argued that the president has few other options at his disposal in the wake of the Supreme Court's interim ruling.
Chad Wolf, the America First Policy Institute’s chair of homeland security and immigration, told Fox News Digital last week that Trump could have "little choice" but to invoke the Insurrection Act.
"If the situation on the ground in Minneapolis continues to grow violent, with ICE officers being targeted and injured as well as other violent acts … Trump will have little choice," he said.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
Experts are split on to what degree there is a through-line between the two issues.
Blackman, the South Texas College of Law professor, said the "point of connection" in Trump's actions is the presidential "power of protection" under Article II, which he said applies both abroad and at home. "The president can protect his law enforcement domestically, and he can protect his law enforcement abroad, both under Article II."
Fox News Digital's Ashley Oliver contributed to this report.
Breanne Deppisch is a national politics reporter for Fox News Digital covering the Trump administration, with a focus on the Justice Department, FBI and other national news. She previously covered national politics at the Washington Examiner and The Washington Post, with additional bylines in Politico Magazine, the Colorado Gazette and others. You can send tips to Breanne at Breanne.Deppisch@fox.com, or follow her on X at @breanne_dep.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/from-caracas-chicago-trumps-article-ii-powers-face-its-biggest-legal-tests-yet