#trump + #venezuela

The real question isn’t whether this action was legal; it is what to do about its illegality. Ignoring the law and the people’s will in this fashion is a high crime. Any Congress inclined to impeach and remove Trump from office over Venezuela would be within their rights. That outcome is unlikely unless Democrats win the midterms. But Congress should enforce its war power. Otherwise, presidents of both parties will keep launching wars of choice with no regard for the will of people or our representatives. And anti-war voters will be radicalized by the dearth of democratic means to effect change.

War-weary voters who thought it was enough to elect a president who called the Iraq War “a stupid thing” and promised an “America First” foreign policy can now see for themselves that they were wrong. In 2026, as ever, only Congress can stop endless wars of choice. And if Trump faces no consequences for this one, he may well start another.

The U.S. military strikes that targeted Venezuela on Saturday morning and the subsequent capture of Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro and his wife may turn out to be popular or defensible, given Maduro's history of despotism and the legal indictments awaiting him in federal court.

What they were not, however, is legal.

The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the sole authority to approve military strikes against foreign countries. Federal laws, like the War Powers Resolution, allow for unilateral executive action only in response to an imminent threat against Americans or U.S. troops. That separation of powers is fundamental to American democracy—not an optional arrangement for presidents to discard when it is politically or logistically inconvenient.

At a press conference on Saturday morning, President Donald Trump termed the attack an "extraordinary military operation," which he claimed was unlike anything seen since World War II. Therefore, there should be no debate about what this was: a military strike, one that utterly lacked congressional authorization.

Vice President J.D. Vance tried a different line of argument earlier on Saturday, when he claimed on X that Trump did not need congressional authorization for the attack on Venezuela because "Maduro has multiple indictments in the United States for narcoterrorism. You don't get to avoid justice for drug trafficking in the United States because you live in a palace in Caracas."

That argument, however, shreds the concept of separation of powers. The executive branch makes indictments. If it is also allowed to use the existence of those indictments to authorize military strikes in foreign nations, then there is no need for Congress to be involved at all.

Indeed, if Vance's argument were correct, why did President George W. Bush bother going to Congress for an Authorization for the Use of Military Force to invade Iraq? It would have been much easier to simply have the attorney general indict Saddam Hussein, then send in in the troops.

Is any nation justified in seizing another nation's leader—even a nasty, illegal one like Maduro—for any alleged crimes? Does the existence of an indictment allow for "extraordinary military operations" anywhere, at any time? That's a framework that seems certain to create more international chaos, not more stability.

The Trump administration claims Maduro was violating the law, but the U.S. loses its moral high ground by acting illegally to remove him. If Trump is doing the right thing by taking Maduro out, then it should have been easy to make that case to Congress.

Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence panel, said Congress should have had primary authority to approve the military action against Maduro, warning the attack could embolden China and Russia to act aggressively against regional neighbors. “Our Constitution places the gravest decisions about the use of military force in the hands of Congress for a reason. Using military force to enact regime change demands the closest scrutiny, precisely because the consequences do not end with the initial strike,” he warned. He said the unilateral action could give justification for China to attack Taiwan or Russia to strike at Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. “If the United States asserts the right to use military force to invade and capture foreign leaders it accuses of criminal conduct, what prevents China from claiming the same authority over Taiwan’s leadership?” he said. “What stops Vladimir Putin from asserting similar justification to abduct Ukraine’s president?” he asked.

Shortly after the US’s capture of Maduro, the wife of Stephen Miller, a key Trump aide, posted a picture of Greenland on X in the colours of the US flag with the caption “SOON”.

The legal authority for the incursion, done without congressional approval, was not immediately clear, but the Trump administration promoted the ouster as a step toward reducing the flow of dangerous drugs into the U.S. The president touted what he saw as other potential benefits, including a leadership stake in the country and greater control of oil.