America will soon learn the details of Donald Trump’s bold act of regime change in Venezuela, where special operations forces whisked Nicolás Maduro out of the country early this morning to face criminal charges in a New York court. That a president who promised to end foreign wars would launch a 1980s-style coup in Latin America will be jarring for many Americans on both sides of the aisle. But millions of Venezuelans and other freedom-loving Latinos are cheering the fall of a tyrant who, in their view, surely had it coming.
There were plenty of reasons to take down Maduro, his alleged connection to “narco-terrorism” being perhaps the least compelling. More serious was the threat posed by his ongoing collusion with America’s rivals, who saw in Venezuela a useful beachhead for harassing the US in its own hemisphere. It appears that Mr. Trump, eyeing a long-term struggle with China, wanted to lock down America’s backyard and signal to revisionist powers that this side of the world is definitively off limits.
In many ways, it was a smart move. A clean victory in Caracas—at this point, still far from certain—would throw our enemies off balance and bring Trump new popularity in the run-up to midterm elections. But the unprompted toppling of a foreign government without congressional oversight raises deep concerns about executive power that need to be addressed.
None of this is new, of course. A long line of American presidents have bypassed the constitutional requirement for a congressional declaration of war, citing their legal right to defend the national interest with military force short-of-war. But the Trump administration’s recent actions demonstrated new levels of disregard for the legislative branch. Congress was not meaningfully informed of US military activity around Venezuela, much less asked for an authorization of military force as it was after September 11.
That is not to say that President Trump’s actions in Venezuela are illegal. It appears he signed a presidential finding authorizing the CIA to conduct lethal activities there under Title 50, which permits the Agency to enlist US military units in support of covert objectives. But the growing concentration of power in the Oval Office cannot be dismissed by reference to technicalities. The failure to provide a clear explanation to the American people or allow meaningful accountability by its representatives marks a dangerous new milestone for our democratic republic.
In its defense, the Trump administration could marshal any number of valid arguments. The constitutional requirement for formal declarations of war is widely seen as outdated and is all but ignored in practice. The need for secrecy, speed, and decisive action makes legislative consultation unrealistic in 21st century warfare. In the case of Maduro, the administration argues it targeted a criminal-terrorist enterprise and not a sovereign state. In any event, the president, as commander-in-chief, has a duty to defend the homeland.
The most troubling fact is that these arguments carry real weight—especially the claim about the changing nature of war. Setting Venezuela aside, there is little doubt that we are entering a dangerous new era in which conflict moves faster and takes different forms than it did in the past. In some respects, the Venezuela operation was still rather conventional with its missile strikes and elite units descending in helicopters to strike a compound. What of the innumerable forms of gray-zone conflict that lie ahead? Should US presidents be expected to consult Congress every time?
Today’s debate centers on the wisdom and legality of Trump’s actions in Venezuela. But the deeper issue is whether any single president should be able to deploy history’s most powerful war machine without some measure of congressional oversight. Are Trump’s supporters confident that such power would be used wisely under a Zohran Mamdani administration? One need not be a Christian realist to recognize that power of that magnitude carries temptations which Adam’s children, both Democrats and Republicans, find hard to resist.
Our constitutional process for warmaking may indeed be too antiquated to meet the demands of our rapidly-changing century. But ignoring that process indefinitely, or extending unfettered power to the executive branch on a “don’t worry, trust us” basis, is a short-sighted response to the problem. Today’s events in Venezuela should be a wake-up call for lawmakers of both parties and the beginning of a serious congressional effort to either revise the existing framework for military action or devise a new one suited to the challenges ahead. Bold executive action is good for America, but only when paired with democratic oversight.
