Leaked Emails Raise New Questions About U.S. Decision-Making in Venezuela Operation

WASHINGTON — Newly disclosed communications, released by a whistleblower and now under review by Congress and the courts, are raising fresh questions about President Donald Trump’s decision to authorize a U.S. military operation in Venezuela earlier this month, including whether diplomatic alternatives were available before force was used.

The emails, dated December 23, 2025, appear to show that intermediaries working through Qatar conveyed an offer from Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro to step down and go into exile in exchange for guarantees of family safety and limited economic concessions. According to the documents, the offer was rejected days before U.S. special forces carried out an operation that resulted in Mr. Maduro’s capture.

The White House has previously described the operation as a rapid response to emerging national security threats, with President Trump stating publicly that the decision was made quickly and without warning to Venezuelan leadership. The newly surfaced emails, however, suggest that U.S. officials had been tracking Mr. Maduro’s movements for weeks and were engaged in indirect negotiations well before the raid.

Administration officials have not yet confirmed the authenticity of the emails, but House Democrats say the documents are credible and are now part of multiple congressional inquiries. Lawmakers are also examining whether the administration complied with document requests related to the operation, after allegations that some materials were not initially disclosed to Congress.

Legal experts caution that even if the emails are verified, they do not automatically establish wrongdoing. Presidents have broad authority in foreign policy and military matters, particularly when national security is invoked. Still, scholars note that the existence of a rejected diplomatic option could complicate the administration’s legal arguments, especially if the operation is challenged under the War Powers Act or international law.

“These materials, if accurate, raise questions about process and transparency,” said one former Justice Department official, speaking on condition of anonymity. “The issue is not whether the president can order military action, but whether the stated justification aligns with the documented decision-making.”

The emails may also play a role in ongoing court proceedings involving Mr. Maduro, who is expected to testify later this month. Defense attorneys have argued that his capture was unlawful and that he had sought a peaceful resolution. Prosecutors maintain that the operation was justified by security concerns, including allegations of narcotics trafficking and regional destabilization.

Beyond the courtroom, the disclosures are reverberating on Capitol Hill. Several Democratic lawmakers have cited the emails as further evidence of what they describe as a pattern of unilateral decision-making by the president. While impeachment remains politically unlikely in a divided Congress, the documents could fuel hearings and intensify scrutiny of the administration’s foreign policy conduct.

The White House has dismissed criticism as partisan and has reiterated that the president acted in the best interests of U.S. security. “The United States will not negotiate with criminal regimes that threaten our nation,” a senior administration official said, declining to comment directly on the reported emails.

As investigators assess the documents, the episode underscores a broader tension that has defined much of Mr. Trump’s presidency: the balance between decisive executive action and institutional oversight. Whether the emails lead to legal consequences or remain a matter of political dispute, they have reopened debate over how major military decisions are made — and explained — to the American public.