newYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
President Donald Trump has spent much of his second term in the White House testing the limits of Article II powers, both at home and abroad — a crucial constitutional battle that legal experts expect will continue to be fought in federal courts for the foreseeable future.
These actions included the US arrest of Venezuelan strongman Nicolas Maduro, who was ousted during a US military raid in Caracas earlier this month, and Trump’s continued fight to deploy National Guard troops in Democratic-led areas, despite stated objections by state and local leaders.
These moves sparked reactions ranging from praise to sharp criticism, while raising new legal questions about the extent to which the current president can exercise power at home and abroad.
Legal experts told Fox News Digital in a series of interviews that they do not expect Trump’s executive powers to be curtailed, at least not significantly or immediately, by federal courts in the near term.
Trump’s ouster of Maduro resembles the US raid on Panama — but there are some key contradictions
Federal law enforcement personnel watch outside the Metropolitan Detention Center as they await the arrival of captive Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, Saturday, January 3, 2026, in New York. (Yuki Iwamura/AP)
Like other US presidents, Trump could cite guidance used by former President George H.W. Bush and others to argue that Maduro’s arrest was in the “national interest” or to protect American people and property.
Despite almost certain challenges from Maduro — who is likely to argue that any U.S. arrest in Venezuela is illegal, echoing Manuel Noriega’s failed strategy decades ago — experts say Trump’s Justice Department would have little difficulty citing court precedent and previous Office of Legal Counsel guidance to justify his arrest and removal.
US presidents have long enjoyed a broader degree of authority over foreign affairs issues—including acting unilaterally to order extraterritorial arrests. Like other US presidents, Trump can cite guidance published in the late 1980s to argue that Maduro’s arrest was in the “national interest” or to protect US persons and property.
President Donald Trump in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday, January 14, 2026. (Evelyn Hochstein/Reuters)
Even if the arrest were deemed a violation of another country’s sovereignty, experts say Trump could cite ample case law and long-standing guidance from the Office of Legal Counsel and the Justice Department to argue the action was legally sound.
A 1989 memo written by then-Assistant US Attorney General Bill Barr has repeatedly emerged as one of the strongest arguments Trump could cite to justify arresting Maduro. “The President, by virtue of his inherent constitutional authority, can authorize executive actions independent of any statutory grant of authority,” the OLC memorandum states. It also allows FBI agents to carry out arrests ordered by the president under the US Constitution’s “take care” clause, and says the power to order extraterritorial arrests applies even if they affect the “sovereignty of other nations.”
Importantly, federal courts have read these powers to apply even in cases where Congress has not expressly granted statutory authorization for intervention.
A defiant Maduro declares himself a ‘prisoner of war’ in first appearance in US court
“When federal interests are at stake, the president, under Article II, has the power to protect them,” Josh Blackman, a constitutional law professor at South Texas College of Law, told Fox News Digital in an interview.
This is because Article II, in essence, is “the power of the President of the United States to protect [its] Blackman said.
He added: “The reason we detained Maduro was to carry out the arrest. The Department of Justice agents and FBI agents were there to arrest him and read him his rights. The reason we used 150 planes, and all the other military equipment, was to protect the people who were going to arrest Maduro.” “It was a law enforcement operation, however [with] Military support to protect them – so Article 2 comes into play here indirectly.”
Protesters gather outside City Hall in Houston, Texas, on January 10, 2026, to participate in a demonstration against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). (Reginald Mathalon/Norphoto via Getty Images)
Although Trump himself did not cite a legal justification for the invasion, senior administration officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, described Maduro’s arrest respectively as a mission to charge two “fugitives from justice” and a “joint military-law enforcement raid.”
In Minnesota, Trump’s next steps look a little more difficult.
Trump’s efforts to deploy the National Guard were blocked by the Supreme Court in December, following the Supreme Court’s decision Stop the deployment of Trump’s National Guard Under heading 10.
Trump deployed federal forces to Illinois and Oregon last year to protect Immigration and Customs Enforcement personnel. But the Supreme Court issued a temporary order denying Trump’s request, noting that under Section 10, the administration cannot federalize the National Guard until it first shows that they tried to authorize the regular military to enforce the laws but were unable to do so.
Some court observers have noted that the ruling essentially closes Trump’s options for action.
Alternatively, Trump could choose to invoke Article 2 of the “protective powers” domestically through more Sweeping and extreme substitute.
Mike Davis: What’s happening in Minnesota is why we have the Insurrection Act
Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh at the US Capitol on January 20, 2025, in Washington, D.C. (Chip Somodevilla/Pool/AFP via Getty Images)
This includes using the Insurrection Act to recall active-duty US troops and order their deployment in Minnesota and elsewhere.
The Insurrection Act is a broad tool that gives presidents the authority to deploy military forces in the United States when “unlawful obstructions, combinations, combinations, or insurrection” make “enforcement of the laws impracticable.”
Critics point out that it is a powerful and far-reaching law that could give Trump an expanded set of powers to act domestically in ways that cannot be reviewed by Congress or the courts.
Jack Goldsmith, Harvard Law Professor and former Assistant U.S. Attorney General, I noticed this possibility in a recent conversation With former White House Counsel Robert Bauer. By “shutting down this other law,” he said, the Supreme Court may have “have, some say, pushed the president in the direction of the Insurrection Act because that other source of power was not available.”
For their part, Trump’s allies said the president has few other options at his disposal in the wake of the Supreme Court’s temporary ruling.
Chad Wolf, president of the Homeland Security and Immigration First Policy Institute, told Fox News Digital last week that Trump has “little choice” but to invoke the Insurrection Act.
“If the situation on the ground in Minneapolis continues to escalate into violence, with ICE officers being targeted and injured in addition to other acts of violence…Trump will have little choice,” he said.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
Experts are divided over the extent to which there is a common thread between the two issues.
Blackman, a law professor at South Texas College of Law, said the “nexus point” in Trump’s actions is the presidential “protective power” under Article II, which he said applies both abroad and at home. “The President can protect law enforcement at home, and he can protect law enforcement abroad, under Article II.”
Fox News Digital’s Ashley Oliver contributed to this report.