Venezuela/Maduro Arrest - Constituent Response

Foreign Policy

Contact Information

Date: January 20-25, 2026 Method: Email via Langworthy.house.gov Topic: Venezuela military operation / Maduro arrest Response Status: Form letter (at least 4 variations documented)


Langworthy’s Response

At least four variations were sent depending on constituent position:

Standard Version:

“As you may know, in 2020, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) indicted Nicolas Maduro on charges of narco-terrorism, drug trafficking, and corruption. These charges detail how Maduro deliberately flooded our nation with cocaine, harming American communities and threatening our national security.”

“I fully support the President’s actions and his clear message that the United States will hold criminal regimes accountable when they threaten our national security.”

“With Maduro now facing justice, the United States has achieved a major milestone in the fight against narco-terrorism and transnational crime.”

War Powers Version:

“While I understand your concerns regarding this operation, the President acted within his Article II constitutional authority to defend the nation.”


Form Letter Variations

VariationSent ToKey Difference
StandardSupportersFull praise for operation
ConcernsThose with concernsAcknowledges concerns, defends anyway
War PowersThose citing CongressDefers to Article II authority
MilitaryThose worried about troopsCites constitutional authority

All versions support the operation and invoke Article II presidential authority.


The Hernandez Contrast

Same period: Langworthy sent letters defending/deflecting from Trump’s pardon of Juan Orlando Hernandez.

FigureCrimeOutcomeLangworthy Position
MaduroIndicted: drug traffickingArrested“Major milestone”
HernandezConvicted: 400 tons cocainePardoned“Constitutional authority” + pivot to Biden

Both are accused/convicted of the same core crime: flooding America with cocaine.


War Powers Question

A constituent specifically asked about Congress adopting a War Powers Resolution.

Langworthy’s response:

“While I understand your concerns regarding this operation, the President acted within his Article II constitutional authority to defend the nation.”

What this doesn’t address:

  • The War Powers Act requires congressional authorization for extended military action
  • Whether Langworthy believes Congress should exercise oversight
  • The constituent’s specific question about congressional action

Form Letter Evidence

  • At least 4 documented variations
  • All contain tracking codes
  • Identical closing language across versions
  • Pre-written responses ready for deployment

Documents



Note: This entry documents publicly available information from official correspondence. Personal constituent information has been redacted.

Research contribution: Constituent submissions via LangworthyWatch

Last updated: February 4, 2026