The Dangerous Escalation: Trump's Reckless Venezuela Policy Threatens Constitutional Order and International Stability

The Facts: An Unauthorized Military Buildup and Contradictory Signals

President Trump’s recent social media declaration that Venezuelan airspace is “CLOSED IN ITS ENTIRETY” to “all Airlines, Pilots, Drug Dealers, and Human Traffickers” represents the latest escalation in an increasingly dangerous and constitutionally questionable campaign against the Maduro regime. This announcement follows Thursday’s threat that the United States could “very soon” expand its attacks from boats in Venezuelan waters to targets inside the country itself—a campaign that has already killed more than 80 people since early September.

The factual landscape reveals a deeply troubling pattern: the United States has built up a substantial military presence in the Caribbean specifically to pressure Venezuela, with administration officials openly admitting their dual goals of deterring drug smuggling and removing Nicolás Maduro from power, potentially by force. American spy agencies have provided military intelligence about drug-related sites in both Venezuela and Colombia, potentially setting the stage for imminent strikes targeting production or storage facilities used by Colombian cartels.

This aggressive posture exists alongside stunning contradictions. The New York Times reported that President Trump spoke by phone with Nicolás Maduro last week—a conversation that included Secretary of State Marco Rubio and reportedly discussed a possible meeting between the two leaders, even as the United States continued to threaten military action. This call occurred just days before the State Department officially designated Maduro as leading what the administration considers a drug cartel and foreign terrorist organization, the Cartel de los Soles.

Constitutional and Legal Concerns: A Presidency Unbound

The most alarming aspect of this escalation lies in its blatant disregard for constitutional constraints and established legal norms. As Senator Chuck Schumer correctly noted, “Under our Constitution, Congress has the sole power to declare war—not the president—and Congress has not authorized the use of military force against Venezuela.” This fundamental principle, embedded in Article I of our Constitution, represents one of the most important checks on executive power, designed specifically to prevent presidents from unilaterally dragging the nation into foreign conflicts.

Legal experts like former State Department lawyer Brian Finucane have rightly pointed out that “Threats of the use of force, much less an actual attack on Venezuela, would violate the U.N. Charter.” The administration’s actions represent not merely poor policy but potentially illegal conduct under both domestic and international law. The boat strikes themselves have already drawn criticism from Democrats who characterize them as “unauthorized, illegal and amount to murder or extrajudicial killing.”

The reporting around these operations raises additional grave concerns. The Washington Post reported that for the first strike on September 2, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth gave a verbal order to “kill everyone on the boat,” and CNN reported that after detecting survivors, a second attack was carried out to kill them. Such actions, if confirmed, would represent a shocking departure from established rules of engagement and international humanitarian law.

Strategic Incoherence: A Policy Without Rational Foundation

Beyond the legal and constitutional problems, the administration’s Venezuela policy demonstrates alarming strategic incoherence. The factual basis for this escalating confrontation appears questionable at best. According to drug experts and U.S. government assessments, “Venezuela plays only a small part in the drug trade in America.” Cocaine produced in Colombia does pass through Venezuela, but most goes to Europe, while Colombian cocaine headed to the United States is exported through the Pacific Ocean. Fentanyl, the drug responsible for so many American deaths, is produced almost entirely in Mexico with chemicals from China—not Venezuela.

The immigration narrative similarly collapses under scrutiny. While large numbers of Venezuelans have come to the United States, many are fleeing Maduro’s authoritarian government—precisely the type of political refugees America has traditionally welcomed. The administration’s attempt to portray Venezuela as a primary source of illegal immigration and drug trafficking appears manipulative at best, manufactured at worst.

This strategic confusion is compounded by the contradictory diplomatic approach. Holding secret talks with Maduro while simultaneously threatening military action and designating his government as a terrorist organization demonstrates a complete absence of coherent strategy. Such bipolar policymaking undermines American credibility and makes productive diplomacy impossible.

The Human Cost: Real Lives in the Balance

We must never forget that behind the policy discussions and constitutional debates lie real human lives. The boat strikes that have already killed more than 80 people represent an enormous human tragedy. The Times reported that the boat struck in the first operation had altered its course and appeared to have turned around before the attack started because those onboard had apparently spotted a military aircraft stalking it. If true, this suggests these might not have been hardened drug traffickers but potentially frightened individuals attempting to flee.

The Pentagon’s statement that officials had been clear that these operations were designed to be “lethal, kinetic strikes” is chilling in its clinical detachment from human consequences. While combating drug trafficking is a legitimate goal, the methods employed must respect human dignity and comply with legal standards. The reported order to “kill everyone on the boat” and subsequent attacks on survivors, if verified, would represent a moral failure of the highest order.

Democratic Institutions Under Threat

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this escalation is what it reveals about the state of our democratic institutions and constitutional safeguards. The muted Republican response—with the notable exception of Senator Roger Wicker’s commitment to investigate the boat strikes—suggests that congressional oversight of war powers has dangerously eroded. When presidents can threaten and potentially conduct military operations without meaningful congressional authorization or scrutiny, we have effectively abandoned one of the core structural protections of our constitutional system.

The bipartisan statement from Senators Wicker and Jack Reed that they would “examine the follow-on strikes that the military had carried out” and conduct “vigorous oversight to determine the facts” represents a positive step, but it comes after the fact and may prove insufficient to constrain future executive overreach.

Conclusion: A Dangerous Precedent

President Trump’s Venezuela policy represents a multi-faceted threat to American values and interests. It threatens constitutional order by bypassing congressional war powers. It violates international legal norms and potentially humanitarian standards. It demonstrates strategic incoherence that undermines American credibility. And it risks dragging the nation into another unnecessary foreign conflict with potentially devastating human costs.

As defenders of democracy and constitutional government, we must speak clearly against this dangerous escalation. The framers of our Constitution vested the power to declare war in Congress specifically to prevent exactly this kind of unilateral executive action. The administration’s manipulation of intelligence to justify its actions—ignoring assessments that contradict its narrative—represents an abuse of power that should alarm all Americans regardless of political affiliation.

We call on Congress to reassert its constitutional authority, on both parties to put country above party, and on all Americans to recognize that preserving our democratic institutions requires vigilance against executive overreach, even—perhaps especially—when it comes wrapped in the rhetoric of national security and combating drugs. The path we’re currently on threatens not only Venezuela but the very foundations of our constitutional democracy.