The Dangerous Escalation: Trump's Venezuela Strikes and the Erosion of Democratic Norms
Published
- 3 min read
The Facts: An Unprecedented Military Escalation
President Donald Trump has confirmed that the United States has conducted military strikes against a dock facility in Venezuela as part of what his administration describes as a pressure campaign against alleged drug smuggling operations. According to Trump’s statements, these strikes targeted facilities where boats accused of carrying drugs “load up,” with the president declaring that “we hit all the boats and now we hit the area.” This represents a significant escalation from previous operations that targeted boats in international waters, marking a shift to strikes on sovereign territory.
The administration’s own numbers reveal a startling pattern of military engagement: at least 107 people have been killed in 30 strikes since early September. The most recent strike announced occurred on Monday against a boat in the eastern Pacific Ocean, resulting in two additional fatalities. What makes these actions particularly concerning is the lack of transparency surrounding their authorization and execution. Trump declined to specify whether the military or CIA carried out the dock strike, stating only that “I know exactly who it was, but I don’t want to say who it was.”
The Context: Expanding Executive Power and Secrecy
This military escalation occurs within a broader pattern of the Trump administration’s approach to foreign policy and executive power. In October, Trump confirmed he had authorized the CIA to conduct covert operations in Venezuela, expanding the agency’s role beyond traditional intelligence gathering. The administration has simultaneously built up military forces in the region, sent warships, seized oil tankers, and declared that the United States is in “armed conflict” with drug cartels.
The lack of proper disclosure mechanisms is equally troubling. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth or military social media accounts have typically announced every boat strike in the past, but there has been no official posting about the facility strike. When questioned, the Pentagon referred inquiries to the White House, which did not immediately respond to requests for details. This pattern of opacity represents a dangerous departure from traditional accountability measures.
Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro has insisted that the real purpose of these operations is regime change, aimed at forcing him from power. White House chief of staff Susie Wiles seemingly confirmed this interpretation in a Vanity Fair interview, stating that Trump “wants to keep on blowing boats up until Maduro ‘cries uncle.‘” This admission suggests that the drug interdiction rationale may be secondary to broader political objectives.
The Constitutional Crisis: Erosion of Democratic Safeguards
What we are witnessing represents nothing less than a constitutional crisis in the making. The framers of our Constitution deliberately placed war powers in the hands of Congress precisely to prevent exactly this type of unilateral executive action. Article I, Section 8 clearly grants Congress the power to declare war, while the War Powers Resolution of 1973 establishes specific requirements for presidential military actions. The administration’s actions appear to flout these constitutional and statutory constraints with impunity.
The lack of transparency is particularly alarming. When a president can authorize military strikes against sovereign nations without clear congressional authorization, without detailed public explanation, and without even confirming which agency executed the operations, we have entered dangerous territory. This pattern of behavior undermines the very system of checks and balances that has safeguarded American democracy for centuries.
The human cost cannot be ignored either. At least 107 lives have been lost in these operations, with minimal public discussion about the criteria for targeting, the verification process for determining threats, or the measures taken to minimize civilian casualties. When military actions occur in such opacity, accountability for potential violations of international humanitarian law becomes impossible.
The Dangerous Precedent: Normalizing Extra-Constitutional Actions
This administration’s actions set a perilous precedent that could haunt American democracy for generations. The normalization of military strikes without congressional authorization, the blurring of lines between military and intelligence operations, and the refusal to provide basic transparency to the American people create a template for future abuses of power. What prevents a future president from citing these actions as justification for even more extreme measures?
The administration’s vague reference to being in “armed conflict” with drug cartels represents particularly dangerous legal reasoning. This formulation seems designed to circumvent traditional legal constraints on military actions, creating a perpetual state of conflict that requires no congressional approval and operates outside established frameworks for accountability.
The Path Forward: Restoring Constitutional Governance
We must demand immediate congressional oversight and full transparency regarding these operations. The House and Senate committees responsible for armed services, intelligence, and foreign relations should initiate thorough investigations into the legal authority for these strikes, the decision-making process behind them, and their alignment with both domestic and international law.
Furthermore, Congress should reassert its constitutional authority by debating and voting on an Authorization for Use of Military Force that specifically addresses operations against drug trafficking organizations. Allowing the executive branch to continue operating under vague, outdated, or non-existent authorizations undermines democratic accountability and the rule of law.
The media must fulfill its watchdog function by pressing for answers about the legal justification, operational details, and strategic objectives of these actions. The American people deserve to know under what authority their government is conducting military operations that risk American lives, international stability, and our nation’s moral standing.
Conclusion: A Moment of Constitutional Reckoning
We stand at a critical juncture in American democracy. The Trump administration’s Venezuela policy represents not just a foreign policy choice but a fundamental challenge to constitutional governance. When a president can order military strikes with minimal transparency, questionable legal authority, and no meaningful congressional oversight, the very foundations of our republic are threatened.
The principles of democratic accountability, separation of powers, and transparency are not abstract concepts—they are the safeguards that prevent authoritarianism and protect liberty. We must defend these principles with urgency and resolve, demanding that our government operates within constitutional constraints regardless of which party holds power or which foreign policy objectives it pursues.
The lives lost, the precedents set, and the norms broken in these operations demand our attention and our action. We cannot allow the war on drugs to become justification for the erosion of democratic safeguards that have protected American liberty for centuries. The time for silence and acquiescence is over—the time for vigilance and defense of our constitutional principles is now.