[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE LEGAL BASIS FOR ACTION AGAINST
VENEZUELAN DRUG TRAFFICKERS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 18, 2026
__________
Serial No. 119-61
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via: http://judiciary.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
63-165 WASHINGTON : 2026
=======================================================================
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Chair
DARRELL ISSA, California JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland, Ranking
ANDY BIGGS, Arizona Member
TOM McCLINTOCK, California JERROLD NADLER, New York
THOMAS P. TIFFANY, Wisconsin ZOE LOFGREN, California
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
CHIP ROY, Texas HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin Georgia
BEN CLINE, Virginia ERIC SWALWELL, California
LANCE GOODEN, Texas TED LIEU, California
JEFFERSON VAN DREW, New Jersey PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
TROY E. NEHLS, Texas J. LUIS CORREA, California
BARRY MOORE, Alabama MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania
HARRIET M. HAGEMAN, Wyoming JOE NEGUSE, Colorado
LAUREL M. LEE, Florida LUCY McBATH, Georgia
WESLEY HUNT, Texas DEBORAH K. ROSS, North Carolina
RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina BECCA BALINT, Vermont
GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois
BRAD KNOTT, North Carolina SYDNEY KAMLAGER-DOVE, California
MARK HARRIS, North Carolina JARED MOSKOWITZ, Florida
ROBERT F. ONDER, Jr., Missouri DANIEL S. GOLDMAN, New York
DEREK SCHMIDT, Kansas JASMINE CROCKETT, Texas
BRANDON GILL, Texas
MICHAEL BAUMGARTNER, Washington
Vacancy
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
JEFFERSON VAN DREW, New Jersey, Chair
BARRY MOORE, Alabama JASMINE CROCKETT, Texas, Ranking
ROBERT F. ONDER, Jr., Missouri Member
DEREK SCHMIDT, Kansas JARED MOSKOWITZ, Florida
BRANDON GILL, Texas HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
Georgia
CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Majority Staff Director
ARTHUR EWENCZYK, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Wednesday, March 18, 2026
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
The Honorable Jefferson Van Drew, Chair of the Subcommittee on
Oversight from the State of New Jersey......................... 1
The Honorable Jasmine Crockett, Ranking Member of the
Subcommittee on Oversight from the State of Texas.............. 3
The Honorable Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member of the Committee on
the Judiciary from the State of Maryland....................... 5
WITNESSES
Mr. Josh Blackman, Professor, South Texas College of Law
Oral Testimony................................................. 9
Prepared Testimony............................................. 12
Franklin Camargo, Prager University Foundation
Oral Testimony................................................. 17
Prepared Testimony............................................. 19
Gina D'Andrea, General Counsel, America First Policy Institute
Oral Testimony................................................. 22
Prepared Testimony............................................. 25
Thomas W. Padden, Former Director, Organized Crime Drug
Enforcement Task Force
Oral Testimony................................................. 29
Prepared Testimony............................................. 31
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC. SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
All materials submitted for the record by the Committee on the
Judiciary are listed below..................................... 51
Materials submitted by the Honorable Derek Schmidt, a Member of
the Subcommittee on Oversight from the State of Kansas, for the
record
A copy of the indictment Nicolas Maduro Moros v. United
States of America, United States District Court, Southern
District, New York
A press release entitled, ``Rubio: This Is Our Hemisphere--
and President Trump Will Not Allow Our Security to be
Threatened,'' Jan. 4, 2026, The White House
An article entitled, ``Gregg Jarrett: No, Trump's order to
snatch Maduro was not illegal or unconstitutional,'' Jan.
4, 2026, Fox News
An article entitled, ``How cocaine and corruption led to the
indictment of Maduro,'' Jan. 4, 2026, AP News
An article entitled, ``Yes, Trump's Venezuela Moves Are
Legal,'' Jan. 6, 2026, City Journal
Materials submitted by the Honorable Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member
of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Maryland
An article entitled, ``Libyan bombing `unconstitutional,'
Republicans warn Obama,'' Mar. 22, 2011, The Guardian
An article entitled, ``Trump urges justice department to
prosecute political opponents,'' Sept. 21, 2025, BBC
An article entitled, ``The Ex-President Whom Trump Plans to
Pardon Flooded America With Cocaine,'' Nov. 30, 2025, The
New York Times
An article entitled, ``Maduro Is Gone, but Repression in
Venezuela Has Intensified,'' Jan. 7, 2026, The New York
Times
Materials submitted by the Honorable Brandon Gill, a Member of
the Subcommittee on Oversight from the State of Texas, for the
record
An article entitled, ``The Trump Administration's Actions in
Venezuela Are Constitutional,'' Jan. 4, 2026, National
Review
An article entitled, ``The Long History of Presidential
Discretion,'' Sept. 18, 2025, American Enterprise
Institute (AEI)
An article entitled, ``Maria Corina Machado says Maduro
capture will go down in history as the day `justice
defeated tyranny,' '' Jan. 6, 2026, CBS News
An article entitled, ``Rubio vows to eliminate Hezbollah,
Iran operations from Venezuela after Maduro capture,''
Jan. 4, 2026, Fox News
An Executive Order entitled, ``Designating Cartels and Other
Organizations as Foreign Terrorist Organizations and
Specially Designated Global Terrorists,'' Jan. 20, 2025,
President Trump, The White House
A press release entitled, ``Designating Cartels and Other
Organizations as Foreign Terrorist Organizations and
Specially Designated Global Terrorists,'' Jan. 20, 2025,
The White House
A fact sheet entitled, ``Designation of International
Cartels,'' Feb. 20, 2025, U.S. Department of State
A press release entitled, ``Treasury Sanctions Venezuelan
Cartel Headed by Maduro,'' Jul. 25, 2025, U.S. Department
of the Treasury
An article entitled, ``Admiral saw alleged drug boat strike
survivors as legitimate targets, defense official says,''
Dec. 4, 2025, NBC News
Materials submitted by the Honorable Jasmine Crockett, Ranking
Member of the Subcommittee on Oversight from the State of
Texas, for the record
An article entitled, ``Trump's War on Iran Violates
International Law & U.S. Constitution: War Crimes
Prosecutor Reed Brody,'' Mar. 2, 2026, Democracy Now!
An article entitled, ``Maduro is gone, bus his regime is
intact. What happened behind the scenes?'' Jan. 8, 2026,
The Guardian
An article entitled, ``Number of U.S. troops wounded in Iran
war surpasses 200 across 7 countries,'' Mar. 16, 2026,
The Washington Post
An article entitled, ``Appropriators backed a crime-fighting
unit. DOJ closed it anyway,'' Dec. 18, 2025, Roll Call
THE LEGAL BASIS FOR ACTION AGAINST VENEZUELAN DRUG TRAFFICKERS
----------
Wednesday, March 18, 2026
House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Oversight
Committee on the Judiciary
Washington, DC
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:10 p.m., in
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Hon. Jefferson
Van Drew [Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Van Drew, Onder, Schmidt, Gill,
Crockett, Raskin, and Johnson.
Mr. Van Drew. The 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 our troops, including the airmen that were killed in Iraq.
Please rise.
All. 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.
Mr. Van Drew. Please remain standing for a moment of
silence.
[Moment of silence.]
Mr. Van Drew. I will now recognize myself for an opening
statement.
I want to welcome everyone to the hearing of 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
the indicted narcoterrorist, Nicolas Maduro.
For decades, Nicolas Maduro and the 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, and our
aunts and uncles.
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.
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.
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.
The U.S. law enforcement, intelligence agencies, and
military personnel spent months gathering intelligence and
coordinating the operation, code named Absolute Resolve.
During 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, 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.
Let me once again be clear. This mission was not an
invasion. This mission was not war. This mission was not regime
change. This mission always was a law enforcement operation to
apprehend indicted fugitives who spent 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. 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. The 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
cutoff 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 lifeline 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.
You know what? 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.
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, shovels, and baseball bats.
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
security in our hemisphere of the world.
Critics have claimed the President's actions were unlawful,
but both domestic and international law supports them in 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, and 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. Successful operation of Operation
Absolute 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. Once
again, I thank you.
I am now going to recognize the Ranking Member, Ms.
Crockett, for an opening statement.
Ms. Crockett. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the witnesses for being here. It seems like we
have a lot of students. Otherwise, you have real young faces in
here. 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 started another
unauthorized regime change war in the Middle East. In this
instance, he invaded a sovereign Nation and kidnapped its
leader.
Now, I don't want you to get it twisted and believe for any
reason that I think Maduro is a saint. There are processes.
A lot of Republicans in Congress and on this Committee will
argue that Trump's attacks on Venezuela will be for the good of
the Venezuelan people, as the Chair has laid out.
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.
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 U.S.
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.
The exact language that I believe the Chair 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.
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.
Donald Trump, he also pardoned former Honduran President
Juan Hernandez 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 prodrug
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 oil companies
would be fully reimbursed by American taxpayers for any
investments they make in Venezuela.
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 can make even more
money.
Not only was this illegal and corrupt, it's also extremely
expensive for U.S. taxpayers. The operation 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 U.S. Government has seized.
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 deaths of 13 U.S. servicemembers 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, there's 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. The idea that you would meet
illegality with further illegality does not necessarily make it
right.
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.
Mr. Van Drew. Thank you, Ms. Crockett. I will now recognize
the Ranking Member of the Full Committee, Mr. Raskin.
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chair, thank you very much. 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.
I am also moved, like Ms. Crockett, by all the young people
here today.
I just want to remind you to read your Constitution,
because in Article I, 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 from Thomas Jefferson specifically
on the subject, saying 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.
Today, not Donald Trump, not J.D. Vance, or not Tulsi
Gabbard, it's got to be the representatives of the people. As
with what's taking place in Iran today, there is no declaration
of war.
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.''
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. 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.
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, the huge numbers 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.
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. 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.
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. Chair, 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.
More than 5,000 FBI and DEA agents have been reassigned
from combating drug cartels, actually fighting drug cartels, to
immigration enforcement 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 nonpartisan 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.
Check this out. Just last year, President Trump pardoned
Juan Orlando Hernandez, the convicted mega cocaine trafficker
and disgraced former President of the country of Honduras.
Hernandez 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 narcotrafficker
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 Hernandez was, quote, ``nothing more than a
Biden set-up'' which is a remarkable claim, given that it was
Trump's own former defense attorney and former DOJ senior
official and now handpicked Federal Judge Emil Bove who built
the case against Hernandez and his family during Trump's first
term.
Hernandez is a 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.
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
health-care funding for Americans who are suffering from opioid
use disorder, they've pardoned narcotraffickers, 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 into the country in any way. For decades, the Coast
Guard stopped the same boats we're blowing up now.
We have not stopped any fentanyl from coming into 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 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.
The 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. Chair.
Mr. Van Drew. I thank the Ranking Member. Without
objection, all the 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.
His research focuses on constitutional law, the
intersection of law and technology, and the U.S. Supreme Court.
Mr. Franklin Camargo. Did I pronounce 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 a 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-March 2025. He served as the Deputy
Director of the task force.
We're going to begin by swearing you all in. 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 are 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 are going to start with you. The
floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF JOSHUA BLACKMAN
Mr. Blackman. Thank you. Chair Van Drew, Ranking Member
Crockett, and 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 Administrations 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, 2020, the U.S. Attorney for the
Southern District of New York unsealed a criminal indictment
against Maduro on charges of narcoterrorism.
Second, on January 20, 2025, President Trump designated
Tren de Aragua (TDA), as a foreign terrorist organization
(FTO).
Third, the event occurred on March 15, 2025. President
Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 regarding TDA. The
proclamation stated that Maduro ``maintains close ties to
regime-sponsored narcoterrorists,'' including TDA. The
President used this proclamation to remove alleged TDA members.
However, Judge James Boasberg ordered the plane 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 had been in the
books since John Adams was President.
Fourth, the event occurred on March 24, 2025. President
Trump imposed emergency tariffs on Venezuelan oil. The
Executive Order found that the Maduro regime ``continues to
pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national
security and foreign policy of the United States.''
Fifth, on July 17, 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 narcotrafficking scheme into the United
States.''
Sixth, according to press reports, by August 2025,
President Trump had directed the Pentagon to use military
forces against TDA. Throughout August there was a major buildup
of Naval force in the Caribbean.
Seventh, 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 sent a letter to Congress and said the
strike was justified as, quote, ``self-defense of the United
States.''
To date, the military has struck approximately 45 vessels.
Eighth, 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 of boat strikes.
The opinion was based on the premise that the President
could determine that the United States is in a formal armed
conflict with narcoterrorist drug cartels. This opinion has not
been made public and I haven't seen it.
On November 6, 2025, the Senate voted on a war powers
resolution that would have terminated hostilities against
Venezuela. That resolution did not pass.
Ninth, on December 10, 2025, the United States seized an
oil tanker off the coast of Venezuela.
Tenth, on December 23, 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.
Eleventh, on January 3, 2026, the United States executed
the law enforcement operation known as Operation Absolute
Resolve. FBI agents, who were protected by a massive but short-
lasting 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 those
legal opinions have not been released.
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, it's useful to remember that these issues are not
the sort 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 for providing oversight of the
executive branch.
Thank you for your attention.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Blackman follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Van Drew. Thank you, Professor. Mr. Camargo, you may
begin.
STATEMENT OF FRANKLIN CAMARGO
Mr. Camargo. Chair Van Drew, Ranking Member Crockett,
Ranking Member Raskin, and the 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. 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. For that same reason, it is important to
be clear today. Maduro was not simply a bad President or a
rogue leader. He's an evil narcoterrorist 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. Two hundred
fifty tons of cocaine moved through Venezuela each year under
the protection of the regime itself, otherwise known as Cartel
de los Soles, Cartel of the Suns.
Thirty thousand Americans died from cocaine overdoses every
single year. When a narcoregime floods our neighborhoods with
dangerous drugs, American families pay the price. That is why
the Department of Justice indicted Nicolas Maduro in 2020 for
narcoterrorism.
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
guerilla, 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.
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, 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've 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 narcoterrorist base
just a short flight from Miami. Our economy would be stronger
and more prosperous alongside an ally who no longer does
business with adversaries like China. There is no doubt America
would be safer, stronger, 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.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Camargo follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Van Drew. Thank you, Mr. Camargo. Next, Ms. D'Andrea.
STATEMENT OF GINA D'ANDREA
Ms. D'Andrea. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Madam Ranking Member,
Mr. Ranking Member, and the 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 confronting a
narcoterrorist 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 narcoterrorism 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. No
principle of international recognition, whether grounded in
effective control or democratic legitimacy, can sustain a claim
to lawful governance 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 narcotrafficker vessels.
Congress itself has designated the Department of War as the
lead Federal agencies for detecting 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
narcoterrorism 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.
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 claim.
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 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 counterdrug
agency, and a Federal grand jury returned the very indictment
this operation enforced.
The 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 executed a Federal warrant
against a man no free Nation recognizes as legitimate.
Here are some brief facts.
Maduro is a narcoterrorist who helped lead the so-called
Cartel of the Suns. He advanced largescale 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.
[The prepared statement of Ms. D'Andrea follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Van Drew. Thank you, Ms. D'Andrea. Mr. Padden, you may
begin.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS PADDEN
Mr. Padden. Chair Van Drew, Ranking Member Crockett,
Ranking Member Raskin, and the 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 Force's
component of the Department of Justice.
I served as the Deputy Director and Acting Director of
OCDETF, as it's known, for the last 17 years of my career. I
served under ten Attorneys General, 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 counterdrug mission is nonpartisan, 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 counterdrug 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 is 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 anticrime 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.
The 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, multiagency 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 Hernandez
of Honduras was convicted at trial, only to be later pardoned
by President Trump.
Through our work, former President Nicolas Maduro of
Venezuela was indicted on drug charges in New York.
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 that seize physical evidence and arrest
mariners allow law enforcement to expand their investigations
and identify additional coconspirators. 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, there's no evidence that
they result in fentanyl seizures.
Fentanyl arrives in the U.S. predominantly across the U.S.-
Mexico border. South American maritime drug shipments are
dominantly 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.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Padden follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Van Drew. Thank you, Mr. Padden.
We'll now proceed with questions, and the five-minute rule
will be in effect. I guess we are going to start with the
gentleman from Georgia.
That's you. You're from Georgia, right?
Mr. Johnson. I think I know who I am, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Van Drew. I always like to bring levity, Hank. You
looked surprised. I don't know if they warned you.
Mr. Johnson. Well, I thought you were going to go first.
Your side gets to go.
Mr. Van Drew. No, I'm tricky, man. You never know what I'm
going to do.
Mr. Johnson. I'm always ready, though.
Mr. Van Drew. I know you are.
Mr. Johnson. Tell me, Mr. Camargo, on what facts do you
conclude that President Maduro was a drug dealer?
Mr. Camargo. Federal indictments, the testimony--
Mr. Johnson. Well, an indictment is not proof. That's just
an allegation.
Mr. Camargo. Sure, but--
Mr. Johnson. What other facts do you have?
Mr. Camargo. We have the reports from the DEA. We also have
testimoneys from people--
Mr. Johnson. What reports are from the DEA?
Mr. Camargo. The DEA reported that the Cartel de los Soles,
Cartel of the Suns, was operating in Venezuela and--
Mr. Johnson. How do you connect that to Nicolas Maduro?
Mr. Camargo. It's an actual totalitarian regime where he
controls every single thing in the country.
Mr. Johnson. 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 are here--
Mr. Camargo. No You know who Hugo ``El Pollo'' Carvajal is?
Mr. Johnson. I'm going to move on, Mr. Camargo.
Mr. Camargo. Sure, of course.
Mr. Johnson. Ms. D'Andrea, what organization that is the
America First Policy Institute?
Ms. D'Andrea. That's correct, sir.
Mr. Johnson. Isn't that the organization founded by the
notorious racist Stephen Miller? Yes or no?
Ms. D'Andrea. No.
Mr. Johnson. That's not the one founded--
Ms. D'Andrea. No, it's actually--
Mr. Johnson. Oh, so you're not connected to Stephen Miller?
Ms. D'Andrea. We are not officially connected to Stephen
Miller.
Mr. Johnson. OK. Well, I'm glad to know that.
Ms. D'Andrea. OK.
Mr. Johnson. I'm glad to know that. I was hoping that you
were 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?
Mr. Blackman. Uh-huh.
Mr. Johnson. 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?
Mr. Blackman. Yes.
Mr. Johnson. The U.N. Charter is a treaty that was ratified
by Congress in 1945. Is that correct?
Mr. Blackman. Yes.
Mr. Johnson. The U.N. 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.''
Mr. Blackman. Uh-huh.
Mr. Johnson. Professor Blackman, do you contend that the
capture and kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro
was not a violation of international law?
Mr. Blackman. All right. There's two points. Thank you for
the question.
The first is, the Executive Branch has long contended that
a treaty unto itself cannot violate the President's inherent
constitutional powers.
Mr. Johnson. Oh, OK. The President has the ability to
contravene any treaties that have been ratified by the U.S.
Congress. Is that your opinion?
Mr. Blackman. Well, what the Executive Branch said is that
they will not--
Mr. Johnson. I'm talking about your opinion.
Mr. Blackman. I think it's actually the case that Congress
can--
Mr. Johnson. 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?
Mr. Blackman. Right. Under the Supremacy Clause of the
Constitution treaties are the law of the land, but the
President has powers unto himself. The President will always
assert broad powers unto himself. The Congress--
Mr. Johnson. You're not answering my question.
Mr. Blackman. No, the answer is yes. I think--
Mr. Johnson. You think the President--you think the
Executive has the power to annul treaties that this Nation is
bound to by ratification by Congress?
Mr. Blackman. Where a treaty intrudes on the President's
power, and especially where there's no enforcing legislation
binding the President--
Mr. Johnson. 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--
Mr. Camargo. Can I speak?
Mr. Johnson. Well, hold on. It's ironic that you would be
here to protest what happened in that country when the same
thing is happening in this country. We have constitutional
scholars, like Professor Blackman, who are aiding and abetting
the slide toward authoritarianism.
Let me ask this last question of Mr. Padden.
Mr. Padden, Juan Orlando Hernandez, 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 U.S. for trial and
prosecution.
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.
With that, I yield back.
Mr. Van Drew. I thank the gentleman from Georgia. With
that, we will recognize the gentleman from Kansas, Mr. Schmidt.
Mr. Schmidt. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
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?
Mr. Padden. 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
were doing OCDEFT work.
Mr. Schmidt. That was in 2020 it was unsealed?
Mr. Padden. Yes, sir.
Mr. Schmidt. Was it obtained before that, do you know?
Mr. Padden. The indictment was obtained before it was
unsealed?
Mr. Schmidt. I presume.
Mr. Padden. I presume it was, yes, sir.
Mr. Schmidt. Yes. Do you know, after the true bill was
returned and the indictment was unsealed, was there an arrest
warrant issued for Mr. Maduro?
Mr. Padden. I personally don't know it, but I would assume
it.
Mr. Schmidt. 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?
Mr. Padden. I don't.
Mr. Schmidt. 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?
Mr. Blackman. Yes. The legal precedent actually involves
Manuel Noriega. Back in 1989, the United States seized Noriega
from Panama. He was holed up in a diplomatic building.
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, ``OK, walk into the country and arrest Maduro.'' They'd
be killed in five seconds.
The purpose of this military force is to protect the FBI
agents who were effecting a lawful arrest.
Mr. Schmidt. Well, isn't it right, Professor, that the
President has a constitutional obligation to take care that the
law be faithfully executed?
Mr. Blackman. Absolutely.
Mr. Schmidt. Doesn't the law authorize the arrest warrant
to direct agents to go take Mr. Maduro into custody?
Mr. Blackman. Absolutely. Maduro was indicted in March
2020. There was no action taken over the past six years to get
him until Trump started ramping up the force when the second
administration began.
Mr. Schmidt. You posited the absurdity of Federal civilian
law enforcement officers showing up in a boat and saying,
``We're here to get Mr. Maduro.''
Even before that 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 effect with
Venezuela.
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?
Mr. Blackman. No, especially in this case where the United
States disputes the election. Everyone agrees he's not the
legitimate President of Venezuela.
You're asking someone who's not really the head of State to
surrender himself. It's not going to happen.
Mr. Schmidt. The President made a judgment, which you've
described here, though not attributing it 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?
Mr. Blackman. Yes.
Mr. Schmidt. What's the alternative?
If that is, in fact, correct--I don't think anybody here is
second guessing the President's judgment or his military
advisers' judgment 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 for the law enforcement agents to do
what they have been lawfully ordered to do, which is take this
defendant into custody. What's the alternative?
Mr. Blackman. The alternative is to do nothing and just let
it--
Mr. Schmidt. That's what we did for five years, isn't it?
Mr. Blackman. Exactly.
Mr. Schmidt. Yes, that's right. Nobody's talked about it
here, and maybe it's not applicable, because it only applies as
a matter of law when there are no other legal authorities, and
here there are plenty of legal authorities the President acted
pursuant to. Let's assume even in that case 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 to carry out the commands
of the law. Is that correct?
Mr. Blackman. Yes.
Mr. Schmidt. 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?
Mr. Blackman. He had to take some action and he had the
authority to do what he did.
Mr. Schmidt. 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?
Mr. Blackman. He probably would have been, yes.
Mr. Schmidt. Chair, I yield back.
Mr. Van Drew. I thank the gentleman from Kansas. With that,
I will recognize the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Raskin, the
Ranking Member.
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chair, thank you very much.
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?
Ms. D'Andrea. Yes, sir.
Mr. Raskin. 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, and a bunch
of other colleagues, including Jason Crow?
Ms. D'Andrea. 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.
Mr. Raskin. You said if any political figure can direct
Federal law enforcement against its critics, we no longer live
under the rule of law.
Ms. D'Andrea. There's a difference between someone being
critical and someone doing something that violates the rule of
law.
Mr. Raskin. OK. All of it--the reason why all the grand
juries refused to render indictments and 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. 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 don't mean to embarrass you in any way, but I liked your
statement of principle, and I'm just willing--I'm wondering
whether you're willing to interpret it in a completely obvious
and objective way.
Ms. D'Andrea. I would say that my interpretation is
objective, and that without having all the facts about each of
these individuals and each of the allegations allegedly against
them, I can't speak generally to the President's statement. I
stick by my original statement--
Mr. Raskin. OK. If any President, whether it was Maduro or
Trump or Oscar Orlando Hernandez, 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? Doesn't
that defeat the whole point of your statement?
Ms. D'Andrea. Respectfully, that's not right. That's not
what I mean. That's not what I intended to say.
Mr. Raskin. All right. Well, let me ask about another one.
I wish we had all day, because you said some interesting
things, which I agree with at the level of generality which you
stated them. For example, you said that Maduro had refused to
cede power, it was in the 2024 election, and you said that it's
impossible to sustain the claim that 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 repudiate
that.
Ms. D'Andrea. 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,
a legitimate dictator, did.
Mr. Raskin. 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.
Ms. D'Andrea. Respectfully, that's not what I said.
Mr. Raskin. 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
seven 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.
Ms. D'Andrea. Respectfully, sir, there's a difference
between asking whether fraud occurred and refusing to cede
power once it's been made clear to you that it hasn't.
Mr. Raskin. Well, what's inciting a violent insurrection
against your own government?
Ms. D'Andrea. I'm not sure I understand what you mean,
what--
Mr. Raskin. 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 those, you think it's legitimate within the rule of law and
democracy to incite a violent insurrection as Donald Trump was
impeached for?
Ms. D'Andrea. Sir, I appreciate the question. I don't have
a clear answer to you about that. I think the evidence--
Mr. Raskin. OK. Well, we can discuss it later. I thank you
for your statement of principles, which 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. Chair.
Mr. Schmidt. Mr. Chair?
Mr. Van Drew. Yes.
Mr. Schmidt. Would you entertain a unanimous consent
request?
Mr. Van Drew. Without objection.
Mr. Schmidt. Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to insert
in the record the indictment in the United States of America v.
Nicolas 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.'' I would ask to insert in
the record another opinion piece titled, ``Yes, Trump's
Venezuela Moves Are Legal.''
Mr. Van Drew. Without objection.
Mr. Schmidt. Thank you.
Mr. Van Drew. I recognize the gentleman from Missouri, Dr.
Onder.
Mr. Onder. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
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 in the
arrest of Nicolas 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 threaten 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?
Mr. Blackman. Sure. The real 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 servicemembers
being injured. The Trump Administration basically relied on the
Obama precedent.
This is an operation that lasted a few hours. There were no
boots on the ground. There was some harm to American
servicemembers, which is tragic, but this was not an obvious
war. Because there's no war, they said, for example, there was
no obligation to comply with the War Powers Resolution, which
is a limited hostility to support a law enforcement operation
to enforce indicting. Mr. Schmidt had asked me that a few
minutes ago.
Mr. Onder. What would you say to critics who argue that the
operation violated international law, particularly the U.N.'s
charter on prohibition of use of force?
Mr. Blackman. 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 U.N. 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.
Mr. Onder. Article II powers.
Mr. Blackman. Yes, they're Article II powers. Congress
doesn't cede its sovereignty to foreign nations very often, at
least with that express language. When the President interprets
Article II, Section 4, of the U.N. Treaty, they say, well,
would we assume Congress give away this power? No. He retains
this power. I don't think that the Article II of the U.N.
Treaty is an obstacle to the President using his constitutional
authority.
Mr. Onder. 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?
Ms. D'Andrea. Thank you, sir. It broadens his ability to
take action. 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.
Mr. Onder. Can you explain how Maduro's regime fostered
U.S. adversaries like Hezbollah and Iran and the threat that
posed to American safety?
Ms. D'Andrea. Absolutely. 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.
Mr. Onder. Despicable. 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. 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. Chair.
Mr. Van Drew. I thank the gentleman from Missouri. I
recognize the Ranking Member, Ms. Crockett.
Ms. Crockett. OK. 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.'' The reason that I bring this up is for two
reasons.
(1) 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.
(2) Professor, you talked about the fact that if there
wasn't a loss of life as it relates to our servicemembers or if
this was just kind of quick boots on the ground for a second,
then it wasn't war. 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.
Mr. Blackman. No. The analysis for Iran is different.
Ms. Crockett. Oh, OK. OK. You agree with me, then? Yes?
Mr. Blackman. I didn't say that.
Ms. Crockett. OK. It's a different analysis. I'm just going
to go with you agreeing with me, because this is clearly a war
and it's unconstitutional. That is the bottom line.
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 fair share of nonsense in other countries. We tend to
supply everybody with the guns. We flood this world with guns
everywhere, right?
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.'' Frankly, legally, that
may work for them. You know why? We have a Constitution and not
everybody does.
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.
The justification, 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--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?
Mr. Blackman. It's not exactly a yes or no question. If I
could just--
Ms. Crockett. All right. Then, I'm going to stop you there,
because I only got so much time. Professor, I was really loving
on you because you came from South Texas, which is down in
Houston, not too far from the University of Houston where I got
my law degree, but it is very clear it is unconstitutional for
us in the United States.
Let me give y'all another issue that--I don't understand if
you all see it the way that I do. There is 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
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 because they believe in actually holding people
accountable, OK so they say, you know what? There was some
girls from England or wherever, because there were people from
different countries and they say 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 twist the law to
justify. The analysis is the same. It you would be outraged if
they came and bombed our country to go after him to arrest him,
if you're listening--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 would be against
it. We should be against it right now.
Thank you. I'll yield.
Mr. Van Drew. I thank the gentlelady. That was a lot.
Ms. Crockett. Got to bring up Epstein.
Mr. Van Drew. I'm going to bring this well, I believe I'm
going to bring it back, then I do have some questions for you.
First, 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 commonsense 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--
you know what Americans would think? Jeez, 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, Nicolas
Maduro, and we did nothing for 5 years. Why was that? Nobody
can give me a good answer for that. It is also clear, I know
the gentleman from Georgia brought up and he asked you, Mr.
Camargo, 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 in
drug cartels? Yes, there was. Everybody agrees with that. Most
Democrats agree with that. Republicans agree with it.
Frankly, 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 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 in real language. I say this all the time, I always
like to kid around, I'm a dentist, I'm not an attorney. OK? 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, to our babies, we've
got to stop it any way that we can legally, and it was legal.
I've got some quick questions.
Mr. Camargo, in your testimony, you stated very clearly
that Nicolas Maduro was not simply a bad person, by the way, an
illegal president, a bastard to be honest with you, an awful,
awful man, he's an evil narcoterrorist. I've 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?
Mr. Camargo. Yes, 100 percent.
Mr. Van Drew. OK. Mr. Camargo, you also testified that 200-
250 metric tons of cocaine moved through Venezuela every single
year under the protection of these regime officials. Yes or no?
Mr. Camargo. Yes.
Mr. Van Drew. 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?
Mr. Camargo. Yes.
Mr. Van Drew. OK. Mr. Camargo, you also pointed out that
Caracas is about 1,400 miles away from Miami, correct?
Mr. Camargo. Yes.
Mr. Van Drew. To this question, yes or no. If a
narcoterrorist 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?
Mr. Camargo. Yes.
Mr. Van Drew. Yes or no? Professor Josh Blackman, I'm
sorry, I'm getting too familiar here.
Mr. Blackman. I'm from Staten Island; we're close.
Mr. Van Drew. You're good. There we go. That's a good
thing.
Let me ask a simple question. Is the Western Hemisphere
safer when a narcoterrorist regime hides the cartels and hostel
foreign powers are removed from power? Are we safer?
Mr. Blackman. I think so.
Mr. Van Drew. Yes, I definitely think so.
Mr. Padden, I've got the harder questions for you. Yes or
no, was Nicolas Maduro indicted by a Federal grand jury in the
United States of America for narcoterrorism before this
operation occurred?
Mr. Padden. He was indicted on other drug charges and
weapons charges before the operation. There's been a
superseding indictment, I believe, since then.
Mr. Van Drew. OK. He was indicted then as well, correct?
Mr. Padden. Correct.
Mr. Van Drew. By the way, that's the difference in the
Ranking Member, I respect her, but she brought up the fact that
it would be just like coming into our country. We keep
forgetting he was indicted by our country. The sealed
indictment was opened up.
Mr. Padden, you argue that these actions made America less
safe, what we've done. 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
narcoterrorist 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? Yes or no?
Mr. Padden. It's too soon to tell whether it would or not,
sir.
Mr. Van Drew. Would that make--just allowing him in power--
you're saying that this could make it safer in America?
Mr. Padden. I'm not sure we'd be less safe than we
currently are if he were still in power.
Mr. Van Drew. Respectfully, this 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, OK.
Let me just, before I do that, let me see who is up. Yes. OK.
Yes. Without objection.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just have three articles to submit for the record:
``Libyan bombing `unconstitutional,' Republicans warn Obama,''
this is from March 22, 2011. ``Trump pushes Justice Department
to prosecute his political opponents,'' that's September 21,
2025. ``The Ex-President Whom Trump Pardoned Flooded America
With Cocaine,'' that's about Juan Orlando Hernandez from
Honduras.
Mr. Van Drew. Without objection. I recognize the gentleman
from Texas, Mr. Gill.
Mr. Gill. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for holding
today's hearing. We certainly appreciate it. 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. 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 10-13 percent of global cocaine movement.
Further, Venezuela hosts multiple transnational gangs,
including the foreign terrorist organization designated Tren de
Aragua, and especially designated global terrorist organization
Cartel de los Soles.
The drug cartels trafficking of fentanyl and other
narcotics kill tens of thousands of Americans annually and is,
therefore, 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?
Mr. Blackman. I have no idea. I'm guessing it's a very
large number.
Mr. Gill. Very large number. Thousands, as far as we know,
as far as we know. How did you--could you just walk me through
how the Maduro regime would aid drug trafficking to the United
States?
Mr. Blackman. Well, the allegation is that the Maduro
regime basically operated as almost as a coordinate of all
these various entities, including Tren de Aragua, and this is
basically the predicate of the President's position to impose
the boat strikes, and it is closely linked to the position to
arrest Maduro.
Mr. Gill. Yep. 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, set up criminal
enterprises here rather than there.
Biden's Venezuela temporary protected status designation
granted quasilegal 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?
Ms. D'Andrea. I believe the evidence shows that there was,
yes.
Mr. Gill. What geopolitical adversaries were they
associated with?
Ms. D'Andrea. There were Iranians and Hezbollah, I believe.
Mr. Gill. 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?
Ms. D'Andrea. Absolutely.
Mr. Gill. Absolutely. That made the United States less
safe, you would say, wouldn't it?
Ms. D'Andrea. Absolutely.
Mr. Gill. I agree, the American people agree as well. 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.
With that said, Mr. Chair, I've got a variety of unanimous
consent requests.
Mr. Van Drew. Without objection.
Mr. Gill. First, an article from the National Review by
John Yoo, ``The Trump Administration's Actions in Venezuela Are
Constitutional.''
An article from AEI also by John Yoo, ``The Long History of
Presidential Discretion.''
An article from CBS News, ``Maria Corina Machado says
Maduro capture will go down in history as the day `justice
defeated tyranny.' ''
An article from FOX News, ``Rubio vows to eliminate
Hezbollah, Iran operations from Venezuela after Maduro
capture.''
A document from The White House designating cartels and
other organizations as foreign terrorist organizations and
specifically designated global terrorists.
Another document from The White House, ``Designation of
international cartels,'' a fact sheet.
A document from the Department of the Treasury, ``Treasury
Sanctions Venezuelan Cartel Headed by Maduro.''
Another article, quote, ``Admiral saw alleged drug boat
strike survivors as legitimate targets, defense official
says.''
Mr. Van Drew. Without objection.
Mr. Gill. That's it. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Van Drew. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Raskin. Sorry. I've got one more too, if that's all
right.
Mr. Van Drew. Without objection.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you kindly, Mr. Chair. 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.
Mr. Van Drew. Without objection.
Ms. Crockett. I have got a UC.
Mr. Van Drew. Without objection.
Ms. Crockett. 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.''
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.''
One more, this one is from December 18, 2025. It says
``Appropriators backed a crime-fighting unit. DOJ closed it
anyway.''
Mr. Van Drew. Without objection.
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.
Without objection, this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:47 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
All materials submitted for the record by Members of the
Subcommittee on Oversight can be found at: https://
docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=119073.
[all]