At the center of the growing criticism of President Trump and his administration in his second term is his unwillingness to abide by key Constitutional principles such as the rule of law, both domestic and international, the checks and balance system in Congressional relations and the importance of due process and equal justice in matters dealing with immigrant rights and foreign governments. President Trump seems determined to make policy decisions based on personal bias, ego enhancement and too often just plain whim. If there is a Trumpian plan for governing, it is to advance the interests of the business elite — billionaires, Big Oil, major technology platforms, the military industrial complex and Wall Street — by weakening institutions, eroding regulations, distributing wealth to the rich, and ignoring the needs of small business, the working class and the poor.
These issues related to Constitutional values and principles, and the advancement of corporate and economic interests were in full display with the attack on Venezuela and the capture of the country’s president Nicolás Maduro. The initial justification for the Venezuelan incursion was defined as curtailing the transport of drugs to the United States. President Trump, Secretary of Defense Hegseth, and Secretary of State Rubio implemented a plan to target drug boats in international waters with drone strikes to limit the transport of what was claimed to be major shipments of cocaine and other drugs. Over one hundred of the alleged drug smugglers were killed without legal authority or efforts to provide due process rights by capturing and interrogating the so-called gang members under the direction of the Maduro regime.
As the plan unfolded, United States special forces entered the country in the pre-dawn hours supported by extensive bombing of Venezuelan airfields and communication centers to capture the President Nicolás Maduro, remove him from the country and bring him to the United States to face charges as a “narco-terrorist.” With Maduro in custody, Trump further warned that the government that assumed power in Venezuela and its police, intelligence and military units would face further aggressive action if there was an unwillingness to comply with U.S. control. Finally, Trump pledged to transfer Venezuela’s substantial oil reserves to American control and work with major oil companies who according to the President would invest billions to repair and rebuild critical infrastructure.
To ensure the success of this plan, Trump announced that his administration would “run” the country for an indeterminate period of time, even to the point of placing “boots on the ground.” There was little attempt to provide legal justification for the Venezuelan incursion except the claim by the President that this was a “law enforcement” action not requiring Congressional approval. Trump even went so far as to claim justifying the incursion as stemming from the “iron laws that have always determined global power.” As the plan unfolded it became clear that the President had no interest in bringing the Congress into the planning process, in fact Trump called the heads of the oil companies to alert them to the attack claiming that he did not involve the Congress fearing press leaks that would compromise the plan to capture Maduro.
While there was initial support among Republicans in Congress and some heads of state sympathetic to Trump’s authoritarian approach to international relations and foreign policy, the primary line of criticism and opposition was associated with the legality of the attack both in terms of constitutional requirements and United Nations mandates. For example, critics of the attack pointed to the Congress’s power to declare war under Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution granting Congress to declare war and also the War Powers Act put into place during the Nixon administration, which mandated Congressional approval for military action and the length of that action. The Act required the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying troops and to remove them within 60 days unless Congress agrees to an extension.
Although the War Powers Act has had limited effect on presidential action to use military force to advance national security objectives, because of issues related to the definition of whether the United States was at war or that the president can take action based on his constitutional power as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, Democrats in Congress nevertheless quickly moved to introduce a War Powers Resolution requiring that the Trump administration refrain from further military action in Venezuela. The resolution passed with five Republican votes but even with Senate approval of the resolution, House Republicans had in previous votes shown an unwillingness to limit Trump’s power to use force to threaten Venezuela should they fail to agree to United States demands. Moreover, a resolution limiting presidential powers in Venezuela would face a certain Trump veto.
But in the international arena there was less hesitation to focus on the illegality of the Venezuelan incursion. Many members of the international community stressed that the Venezuelan attack violated Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter which stated that “All members shall refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.” Furthermore, international and United Nations experts point to the fact that the actions of the United States in Venezuela could only be lawful if supported by a resolution of the UN Security Council, if the U.S. was acting in self-defense or if there was consent by the lawful government of Venezuela to the intervention.
Many in the international community stated that the Venezuelan incursion set a dangerous precedent that would embolden the Chinese to invade neighboring Taiwan in a manner similar to Trump’s invasion of Venezuela. China had for years claimed Taiwan as its territory but was reluctant to engage in military action, but the action of the Trump administration provided an opening for an invasion. The attack on Venezuela also created new concerns in Latin America and particularly the Caribbean Basin that the United States intended to invade Panama, Colombia, Cuba and Mexico, which were viewed as sources of the cocaine and fentanyl trade and in Cuba’s case a close ally of Russia. Also, the Venezuelan attack reignited Trump interest in taking control of Greenland, which is a Danish protectorate. President Trump had for months expressed interest in Greenland for national security purposes and mineral rights, especially in light of possible Russian expansionism. As for the Danish, their government responded to the Trump threat by threatening to invoke Article 5 of the NATO agreement that would bring European nations into the crisis to protect the interests of a member nation with military action.
The incursion of the United Stats into Venezuela to remove President Maduro from power and claim control of the country and its oil reserves created significant concern in the international arena as it became clear that the Trump administration had changed longstanding rules limiting foreign intervention, respecting national sovereignty and supporting territorial integrity. With the attack on the Maduro regime the world has entered a new period of uncertainty and potential regional conflict, but more importantly the United States incursion further weakened this country’s key constitutional guarantees, established norms for Congressional participation in foreign policy decisions and most of all the special regard for the rule of law.