People stand in the rain outside a public building, holding umbrellas and protest signs that read “No blood for oil,” “Stop invasion of Venezuela,” “U.S. get out of Venezuela,” and “No illegal war.”
Activists advocate against what they described as President Donald Trump’s invasion of Venezuela during an Indivisible Ukiah protest in Ukiah, Calif., on Saturday, Jan. 3, 2026. (Sydney Fishman/Bay City News)

The news out of Venezuela this weekend demands careful attention from all of us. Our country has launched a series of military strikes against Venezuelan targets, and President Nicolás Maduro and his wife were captured and removed from Venezuela during the operation. President Donald Trump has said that the United States will oversee Venezuela temporarily and help restore its oil infrastructure as part of a “transition.”

These developments have very serious global consequences. Governments around the world are reacting, and opinion is deeply divided. Some Venezuelan opposition figures have greeted the reports as an opportunity for democratic change. Others are raising concerns about the legality of the strikes under international law.

Amid the debate, one critical issue has received too little attention from Washington’s political class: Did Congress authorize this use of force?

The Constitution is clear. Article I vests in Congress the sole power to declare war and to authorize the use of military force abroad. That power was not assigned to the president. It was deliberately given to the people’s representatives so that decisions about war and conflict could be made through open debate, not by unilateral executive action.

However, in recent years, presidents of both parties have conducted military operations and escalations without formal, specific congressional approval. The situation in Venezuela now appears to be the most dramatic example to date. The American people and their elected representatives in Congress deserve to know under what authority these strikes occurred and whether military force in a sovereign country was justified and lawful.

This is not a defense of Nicolás Maduro. His government has presided over economic collapse, repression and corruption. Venezuela’s economy continues to falter under mismanagement and corruption. Serious questions exist about narco-trafficking networks and regional security. But serious policy questions must be addressed through constitutional processes, not executive decree.

If the United States believes that military engagement in Venezuela is necessary, then Congress must debate it openly and vote on it. The American people deserve that debate, and our Constitution requires it. Anything less undermines the oath that every elected official, including the President and members of Congress, swore to uphold.

When presidents act without authorization, they erode our democratic institutions, undermine the checks and balances that define our republic and set dangerous precedents for the future stability of our nation.

Colby Smart is an independent candidate for California’s 2nd Congressional District.

Join the Conversation

3 Comments

  1. Per Jonathan Turley: “Courts have routinely dismissed challenges to undeclared military offensives against other nations. In fairness to Trump, most Democrats were as quiet as church mice when Obama and Hillary Clinton attacked Libya’s capital and military sites to achieve regime change without any authorization from Congress. They were also silent when Obama vaporized an American under this ‘kill list’ policy without even a criminal charge. So please spare me the outrage now.” Exactly. This will be held up as a legal operation.

  2. Very confusing to see Americans defending the well-planned cleaning out of a nest of viper-like countries attempting to destroy America. It was legal and well implemented. Many presidents have used this same action in the name of national security. Can they not see the damage Madura and his allies had already done to us? Do they not get their long-term intentions to take us over? Do they get that if Congress had been consulted, the leaks would have prevented a successful operation? DJT is annoying and talks too much at times, but I thank goodness that we have a president who loves America and Americans, and has a backbone.

    1. Totally agree. How many times have we seen Congressional members (on both sides) walk directly out of a classified briefing and step in front of the cameras waiting in the hallway to be the first the make a public announcement?
      Or, the very next day there is an article in the newspapers based on “an anonymous source” that goes into great detail of an upcoming classified operation?

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *