Trump’s War Powers in Venezuela and Congressional Calls for a Resolution

President Trump’s strikes on Venezuelan drug boats, operations on Venezuelan territory, and the capture of Nicolás Maduro have been criticized by Democrats as illegal. Critics argue that the president violated the Constitution by acting without congressional authorization. Senator Bernie Sanders said Trump showed “contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law,” arguing that the president lacks the authority to unilaterally take the country to war or to “run” Venezuela.

Sanders is, of course, mistaken, as the United States has not gone to war. A declaration of war can only come from Congress, and the current military actions were conducted under presidential war powers. Representative Gregory Meeks said he received no briefing or advance notice. However, under war powers authorities, no advance notice is required.

Representative Seth Moulton and others argued that Venezuela posed no imminent threat. However, under war powers doctrine, the president determines what constitutes a threat or an emergency. The president’s authority as Commander in Chief under Article II of the Constitution is ongoing and inherent. It does not require a declared emergency, a declared war, congressional authorization for initial deployments, or any special invocation of powers.

The president may deploy troops based on threats to national security as he defines them, the protection of American citizens abroad, the defense of U.S. interests, treaty obligations, humanitarian missions, peacekeeping operations, or responses to attacks.

No body is required to approve the president’s determination that circumstances warrant deployment. That judgment is made unilaterally by the president as Commander in Chief, subject only to political accountability and the time limits imposed by the War Powers Resolution. Congress’s primary leverage lies in funding and political pressure, not prior authorization.

Multiple members of Congress, including Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Senator Adam Schiff (D-CA), and Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), called for a War Powers Resolution in response to the Venezuela operation.

Democrats, led by Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, invoked the War Powers Resolution to require congressional authorization for any further U.S. military action in Venezuela. Kaine, joined by Senators Rand Paul, Adam Schiff, and Chuck Schumer, introduced a resolution directing the removal of U.S. forces from hostilities unless explicitly authorized by Congress. The measure initially advanced with bipartisan support, including five Republican senators, and was framed as an effort to reassert Congress’s authority to declare war under Article I, Section 8. The resolution ultimately failed after Vice President JD Vance broke a 50–50 tie.

Under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which remains standing law, the president must notify Congress within 48 hours of introducing U.S. forces into hostilities and withdraw those forces after 60 days unless Congress authorizes continued operations. Every administration since 1973 has questioned the resolution’s constitutionality, arguing that it improperly restricts the president’s Article II authority as Commander in Chief.

The Trump administration complied with the notification requirement by informing congressional leaders after the Venezuela operation had begun. President Trump said Congress was not briefed in advance because lawmakers have “a tendency to leak” and prior notification would have endangered the mission.

While this approach conflicted with congressional expectations for consultation, the administration maintained that the operation fell within the president’s inherent authority to act unilaterally in defense of national security. Presidents routinely deploy forces without congressional votes for drone strikes, special operations, and limited interventions. In practice, the War Powers Resolution’s 60-day withdrawal requirement is rarely enforced, as Congress often declines to press the issue politically.

The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) within the U.S. Department of Justice issued the controlling legal opinion on the Venezuela operation. The OLC is a small but highly influential office that provides authoritative legal advice to the president and executive branch agencies. Its formal opinions interpret constitutional and statutory law, advise on the scope of executive authority, and resolve legal disputes within the executive branch.

Unless overruled by the attorney general or the president, OLC opinions are binding on the executive branch and are treated as settled law, even when outside legal scholars or courts disagree.

In a December 23, 2025 memorandum addressing Operation Absolute Resolve, the OLC concluded that the operation was lawful under U.S. domestic law. The memo determined that the action did not rise to the level of “war in the constitutional sense” and therefore did not require congressional authorization. It found that the president acted within his inherent Article II authority as Commander in Chief and that the operation could be characterized as a law enforcement mission supported by military assets under existing statutes.

The OLC acknowledged that the operation likely violated international law, including the UN Charter’s prohibition on the use of force against the territorial integrity of sovereign states. However, it concluded that breaches of international law do not constrain the president’s authority under U.S. domestic law. This reflects a longstanding OLC position that the Constitution and U.S. statutes govern presidential authority, and that international treaties do not limit the president’s constitutional powers absent implementing legislation.

This approach is consistent with prior OLC opinions, which have frequently concluded that executive actions may violate international law while remaining lawful under U.S. constitutional and statutory frameworks. The OLC’s role is to advise the president on domestic legal authority, not to adjudicate compliance with international law. While the office has a controversial history, including its expansive interpretations of executive power during the Bush administration, its reasoning in the Venezuela case follows a well-established pattern: international law violations are treated as a separate issue and do not, in themselves, restrict presidential authority under Article II.

The post Trump’s War Powers in Venezuela and Congressional Calls for a Resolution appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.