The Trump administration’s recent seizure of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro has left me shocked and disappointed. The attack, which killed at least 100 people in Venezuela, is a clear violation of the conditions spelled out in the Constitution for the use of military force. Having served in uniform at home and abroad, and having sworn an oath to support and defend the Constitution, such disregard for the rule of law is appalling.
Author
- Ken Mitchell is a candidate for the Democratic Party nomination in the Sixth District in the 2026 election cycle.
Since the founding of the United States of America, presidents have turned to Congress to approve military action abroad. One such Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) is valid today. It first was adopted on Sept. 14, 2001, authorizing military action against Al-Qaeda and groups and states responsible for harboring or supporting Al-Qaeda or others involved in planning and carrying out the terrible attacks of 9/11. Another AUMF, authorizing the 2003 invasion of Iraq, was adopted in October 2002 and only just repealed on Dec. 18, 2025. Now more than ever, that system of checks and balances needs to be honored as our founders intended.
While I’m relieved that no American soldiers were injured in this operation, I worry about the lack of recourse that this precedent creates. If a soldier dies during action ordered by the President but without the authorization of Congress, the American people have no way, through their representatives, to check the President’s use of the military by withdrawing authorization. If Congress decides that the President has overstepped, or that ongoing military action is no longer in U.S. interests, the notion that the President doesn’t need congressional approval for military action means that it wouldn’t be possible to override the President’s decisions. This possibility is directly contrary to the system of checks and balances that the framers created.
We could consider a handful of reasons why Trump chose to attack Venezuela instead of another, more immediately threatening, state or non-state actor: that he has unfinished business after the failed attempt at supporting Juan Guaido during his first term, that Marco Rubio has a personal vendetta against Venezuela, Cuba and Nicaragua and is leveraging his unprecedented influence as Secretary of State and National Security Advisor to favor military intervention, or that Venezuela has immediately accessible oil reserves that Trump wants to exploit. All of those reasons might be true, to one degree or another, but none of them are good enough to justify bypassing Congress.
In response to criticism, the President’s defenders continue to point out that Maduro was corrupt and authoritarian. But two things can be true at the same time: Maduro is not a good person, and carrying out unprovoked military action is unconstitutional.
As a United States Army veteran, having served both abroad and in a national security capacity in the White House, my concerns about the attack on Venezuela are not focused on whether or not the removal of an authoritarian and illegitimate leader was right or wrong, but rather that the attack failed to follow the correct process. Our Republic and our military are built on the rule of law, and our service members deserve assurance that the actions of the military are approved through the proper channels, including Congressional authorization. The seizure of Maduro was not.
The United States has countless adversaries around the globe, Russia and North Korea among them, who routinely target American businesses, interests, and government agencies with cyberattacks and sabotage operations. Other state and non-state actors target Americans through terrorist activity, drug smuggling, and even scam telephone calls and emails. Though these actions and countless others pose a threat to American interests and the American people, the presence of such threats is not by itself a sufficient justification for military action against those responsible. If so, should we now plan to arrest Xi Jinping for human rights abuses against Uyghur populations in China? Or Vladimir Putin for evading oil sanctions? What about Kim Jong Un for organizing and profiting from North Korea’s opiate drug trade (which is arguably more threatening to American lives than the small amount of cocaine originating from Venezuela)?
This isn’t to say that we should turn a blind eye to authoritarianism, or sit helplessly by when governments, groups, or individuals carry out actions that hurt American interests around the world. We have a responsibility to call out injustice, abuse of power, and harmful actions. That responsibility does exist abroad (and we should continue to use diplomatic means to pressure the regime that remains intact in Venezuela despite Maduro’s capture) but it also exists here at home. The United States should be focusing our resources first and foremost on helping support struggling Americans, making sure people are fed, well-educated, and housed.
Aside from the clear disregard for constitutional and historical precedent that the President seek approval from Congress to use military force, what’s most concerning to me is that aside from allowing Maduro to face prosecution, this costly attack that killed over 100 in Venezuela and risked the lives of American servicemembers failed to accomplish any American foreign policy goals in the region. Venezuela’s authoritarian, corrupt, and illegitimate government is still alive and well. The country is not any more stable, meaning the refugee and asylum situation regarding Venezuelan nationals remains the same. The relatively small drug operation existing in Venezuela was not dismantled, nor has the Venezuelan government committed to greater enforcement or cooperation efforts.
This final point reinforces the need for congressional involvement in military action. Congressional oversight is an important check on the executive, and the power to declare war is a key way for Congress to intervene in matters of foreign policy. Seeking approval from Congress subjects the President to critical oversight that would avoid the same kind of short-sighted military and foreign policy mistakes being made by the current administration, and ensure that any military action is correctly aligned with our long-term interests. I urge my fellow Americans in Congress to firmly defend Congress’ constitutionally-endowed authority to approve military action. I certainly intend to do so.