Is this the first time the United States has bombed a capital and kidnapped a head of government without congressional approval or declaration of war?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The United States has a long history of conducting bombings and military strikes abroad without a formal congressional declaration of war, including secret bombing campaigns in Southeast Asia and numerous presidential-ordered strikes in the post‑World War II era [1] [2] [3]. What is not established in the reporting provided is a clear historical precedent—documented in these sources—for the United States both bombing a capital and then kidnapping a sitting foreign head of government in a single operation without congressional approval; the recent reports cite the Maduro capture as alleged by U.S. officials but do not demonstrate a directly comparable prior instance in the provided record [4] [5].
1. Bombing foreign targets without Congress: well-worn precedent
Presidents of both parties have repeatedly ordered strikes, raids, and bombing campaigns without a formal congressional declaration of war, a pattern that helped produce the War Powers Resolution of 1973 after revelations such as secret bombings in Cambodia during the Vietnam era [1] [2]; scholars and reporters catalogue numerous unilateral actions from Korea and Guatemala to Vietnam, Libya and more recent strikes justified under AUMFs or Article II authority [3] [6] [7].
2. High-profile recent examples that set the political context
Contemporary episodes cited by multiple outlets include targeted strikes such as the killing of Iranian Major General Qassim Soleimani in 2020, carried out without prior consultation with Congress, and air operations in 2025 that analysts say were conducted without congressional approval—examples that defenders and critics alike use to argue either necessity or executive overreach [8] [4].
3. The Maduro case as reported: bombing plus an alleged capture
Reporting on the June 2025 Venezuela operation states U.S. strikes hit Caracas and U.S. officials announced that Nicolás Maduro and his wife had been captured and flown out of the country; local and international witnesses described explosions and aircraft over the capital, and U.S. political figures criticized the administration for acting without congressional approval [5] [4] [9]. Those contemporary reports frame the operation as a large‑scale military action carried out under executive authority, provoking debate about legality and precedent [4] [9].
4. Kidnapping or capture of a sitting head of state: precedent not established in provided sources
The sources assembled document many unilateral U.S. military actions and coups influenced or supported by the U.S.—for instance, events like Guatemala in 1954 are cited as CIA‑backed interventions—but none of the supplied pieces document a prior U.S. operation that combined bombing a sovereign capital and forcibly removing (kidnapping) a sitting head of government in the same way the recent Venezuela reporting alleges [3] [10]. Without additional primary documentation, the claim that this is the first such instance cannot be definitively proven from the provided reporting; likewise, the reporting does not supply an authoritative historical comparison that shows an identical precedent [3] [2].
5. Legal and political frameworks that matter to the question
The War Powers Resolution requires reporting to Congress within 48 hours of introducing U.S. armed forces into hostilities and limits sustained hostilities absent authorization, but presidents have often invoked AUMFs, national‑security prerogatives, or Article II powers to justify actions without a new congressional declaration—context that explains why unilateral strikes recur even as lawmakers protest [1] [3] [6].
6. Competing interpretations and the limits of available reporting
Advocates for executive flexibility argue past presidents have had to act swiftly using commander‑in‑chief powers; critics counter that repeated unilateral strikes erode constitutional checks and require congressional scrutiny [3] [7]. The supplied sources document both the pattern of unilateral force and contemporary objections, but they do not provide exhaustive archival proof about every past capture of foreign leaders—so the assertion that the Venezuela incident is categorically unique on the kidnapping dimension remains unverified by the material provided [3] [4] [5].