U.S. forces capture Venezuelan president in predawn operation The United States executed a covert raid that resulted in the capture of Nicolás Maduro, the head of Venezuela, early on January 6, 2026. The operation involved special‑operations units and was presented by the administration as a law‑enforcement arrest rather than a conventional military invasion. Both outlets confirm the raid’s success and its immediate political fallout [1][2].

Administration warned oil firms, Congress left out of advance briefings President Trump’s team reportedly alerted major oil companies about the impending strike, but senior congressional leaders received no prior notice. A post‑operation debriefing was later provided only to the “Gang of Eight,” the small group traditionally briefed on sensitive national‑security actions, leaving key lawmakers such as Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley out of the loop. This split between the White House and Capitol Hill fuels the current oversight dispute [1].

GOP senators argue secrecy protects operational security Senate Majority Leader John Thune and several Republican colleagues described advance congressional notification as “ill‑advised,” emphasizing the need to shield hypersensitive missions from leaks. Senators Tom Cotton and Mike Lee framed the raid as a targeted arrest, invoking the president’s “inherent authority” under Article II to justify limited briefings. Their stance reflects a broader partisan view that the War Powers Resolution does not apply to law‑enforcement‑style actions abroad [1].

War Powers Resolution resolution could force a congressional vote Senators Tim Kaine and Rand Paul have introduced a resolution demanding formal congressional approval for any continued U.S. military involvement in Venezuela, citing the 48‑hour notification and 60‑day cutoff provisions of the War Powers law. The measure is slated for a vote later this week and would require at least three Republican votes to pass, testing the party’s unity on oversight. A similar effort failed in October, highlighting the contentious nature of the debate [1].

Media restraint praised by officials amid new Pentagon press rules Secretary of State Marco Rubio publicly thanked outlets that withheld pre‑raid reporting, saying their discretion helped protect American personnel. Reports indicate The New York Times and The Washington Post received advance notice but chose not to publish, while AP journalists heard explosions two hours before the president’s public announcement. Concurrently, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s tightened Pentagon press restrictions have sparked lawsuits and strained relations with the press [2].