Trump Defies Congress: Strikes Near Venezuela Spark Capitol Showdown

Paul Riverbank, 12/5/2025Congress and the Trump administration clash over military strikes near Venezuela, igniting a pivotal debate about presidential war powers, congressional oversight, and the legal boundaries of U.S. foreign interventions.

The story began not with a bang, but with a low-profile effort targeting drug smugglers in the Caribbean. Administration officials have pointed to these operations as a crucial move—Prohibition-era language about “cutting the head off the snake” has made a return in some briefings—aimed squarely at stopping narcotics before they find their way into American communities. President Trump himself took it a step further, hinting at the possibility of “land operations inside Venezuela,” a phrase that landed with a thud in the halls of Congress.

Tensions rose after a second strike on September 2 ended with the deaths of several suspected smugglers. Questions arrived quickly, and they haven’t stopped. Lawmakers from both parties, not just the usual opposition voices, want clearer answers: Was this operation legally authorized? Are there broader military goals? What risks loom on the horizon if this escalates?

Democratic Senator Tim Kaine, whose plainspoken style usually cuts through political fog, put it this way: “We shouldn’t stumble into an unnecessary war with Venezuela—risking U.S. servicemembers’ lives—with no congressional authorization and incomplete information about the Administration’s objectives, its legal rationale, and the potential consequences of a long-term conflict that could drive migration and irreparably fracture Venezuela.” That sort of language has prompted some of his colleagues to back legislation curbing funding for military action in Venezuela, a sign of how seriously Congress is taking its oversight role.

The call for more transparency is bipartisan. Lawmakers have pressed the White House to release video from the September 2 incident. Senator Jack Reed, who leads the Armed Services Committee, emerged from a classified briefing visibly unsettled. “I am deeply disturbed by what I saw,” he told reporters, “This must and will be the only beginning of our investigation into this incident.” It’s become clear that, for many on Capitol Hill, answers aren’t coming fast enough.

Despite this, officials close to President Trump have pushed back, insisting the administration is acting within its mandate to fight the “scourge of narcoterrorism.” Anna Kelly, a White House spokeswoman, framed the move in stark terms: “As President Trump has said, all options are on the table as he works to combat the scourge of narcoterrorism that has resulted in the needless deaths of thousands of innocent Americans.” It’s a familiar refrain, but for critics, it does little to clarify legal justification or the scope of the mission.

Underneath the public finger-pointing is a deeper question—one with roots going back to the 1973 War Powers Act. Who gets to decide when the U.S. takes military action, especially when there isn’t a clear, direct threat to the homeland? Some Republicans, not eager to see Congress sidelined, have joined Democrats in arguing that the President shouldn't act alone. Lawmakers insist the Constitution requires them to approve acts of war or major military actions—unless there’s no time for debate.

Katherine Thompson, a policy analyst at the Cato Institute, commented to me that political scrutiny may wind up having real impact. “I think in order to avoid some of those more harsh political punishments, the administration will likely have to shift its strategy,” she said, hinting that a presidential veto override would be politically bruising as well as historically significant.

Some have floated the idea that the administration could win over skeptics by seeking a formal Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF)—a clear, legal go-ahead from Congress that would force everyone to lay their cards on the table: plans, risks, objectives, and oversight.

Watching these debates, it’s notable that the administration has avoided talk of regime change even as hawkish senators like Lindsey Graham have raised the notion. The official word is, this is about drugs, not toppling Nicolás Maduro.

The details of the September 2 operation itself have raised further alarms. The Washington Post ran a piece suggesting a senior official might have ordered a lethal follow-up attack on survivors of a drug boat. White House officials denied this flatly, insisting that the decision was taken by Adm. Frank Bradley of U.S. Special Operations, not higher-ups. Senator Tom Cotton, notorious for his blunt statements, added that there was a written order “in great detail," though refrained from commenting on its nature.

Still, the campaign against narco-trafficking in the Caribbean isn’t slowing. U.S. strikes continue. The new Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth (a title that feels almost anachronistic), had this to say: “We’ve only just begun striking narco-boats and putting narco-terrorists at the bottom of the ocean because they’ve been poisoning the American people.”

Exactly where this leaves executive-congressional relations, no one is quite sure. Oversight may soon translate into real constraints on presidential action—or perhaps just shift the White House’s approach into less visible channels. But with both branches digging in, the fight over war powers hasn’t felt this personal, or this immediate, in years. History suggests these moments can alter U.S. policy for decades—though, as always in politics, tomorrow’s headlines may bring an entirely new crisis to the foreground.

Sometimes a standoff between Congress and the White House plays out quietly, in committee rooms and late-night phone calls. But this week, friction over American military action near Venezuela has spilled into plain view, with lawmakers openly questioning how much say the President should have when sending U.S. forces abroad—especially with lives and global consequences at stake.The story began not with a bang, but with a low-profile effort targeting drug smugglers in the Caribbean. Administration officials have pointed to these operations as a crucial move—Prohibition-era language about “cutting the head off the snake” has made a return in some briefings—aimed squarely at stopping narcotics before they find their way into American communities. President Trump himself took it a step further, hinting at the possibility of “land operations inside Venezuela,” a phrase that landed with a thud in the halls of Congress.Tensions rose after a second strike on September 2 ended with the deaths of several suspected smugglers. Questions arrived quickly, and they haven’t stopped. Lawmakers from both parties, not just the usual opposition voices, want clearer answers: Was this operation legally authorized? Are there broader military goals? What risks loom on the horizon if this escalates?Democratic Senator Tim Kaine, whose plainspoken style usually cuts through political fog, put it this way: “We shouldn’t stumble into an unnecessary war with Venezuela—risking U.S. servicemembers’ lives—with no congressional authorization and incomplete information about the Administration’s objectives, its legal rationale, and the potential consequences of a long-term conflict that could drive migration and irreparably fracture Venezuela.” That sort of language has prompted some of his colleagues to back legislation curbing funding for military action in Venezuela, a sign of how seriously Congress is taking its oversight role.The call for more transparency is bipartisan. Lawmakers have pressed the White House to release video from the September 2 incident. Senator Jack Reed, who leads the Armed Services Committee, emerged from a classified briefing visibly unsettled. “I am deeply disturbed by what I saw,” he told reporters, “This must and will be the only beginning of our investigation into this incident.” It’s become clear that, for many on Capitol Hill, answers aren’t coming fast enough.Despite this, officials close to President Trump have pushed back, insisting the administration is acting within its mandate to fight the “scourge of narcoterrorism.” Anna Kelly, a White House spokeswoman, framed the move in stark terms: “As President Trump has said, all options are on the table as he works to combat the scourge of narcoterrorism that has resulted in the needless deaths of thousands of innocent Americans.” It’s a familiar refrain, but for critics, it does little to clarify legal justification or the scope of the mission.Underneath the public finger-pointing is a deeper question—one with roots going back to the 1973 War Powers Act. Who gets to decide when the U.S. takes military action, especially when there isn’t a clear, direct threat to the homeland? Some Republicans, not eager to see Congress sidelined, have joined Democrats in arguing that the President shouldn't act alone. Lawmakers insist the Constitution requires them to approve acts of war or major military actions—unless there’s no time for debate.Katherine Thompson, a policy analyst at the Cato Institute, commented to me that political scrutiny may wind up having real impact. “I think in order to avoid some of those more harsh political punishments, the administration will likely have to shift its strategy,” she said, hinting that a presidential veto override would be politically bruising as well as historically significant.Some have floated the idea that the administration could win over skeptics by seeking a formal Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF)—a clear, legal go-ahead from Congress that would force everyone to lay their cards on the table: plans, risks, objectives, and oversight.Watching these debates, it’s notable that the administration has avoided talk of regime change even as hawkish senators like Lindsey Graham have raised the notion. The official word is, this is about drugs, not toppling Nicolás Maduro.The details of the September 2 operation itself have raised further alarms. The Washington Post ran a piece suggesting a senior official might have ordered a lethal follow-up attack on survivors of a drug boat. White House officials denied this flatly, insisting that the decision was taken by Adm. Frank Bradley of U.S. Special Operations, not higher-ups. Senator Tom Cotton, notorious for his blunt statements, added that there was a written order “in great detail," though refrained from commenting on its nature.Still, the campaign against narco-trafficking in the Caribbean isn’t slowing. U.S. strikes continue. The new Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth (a title that feels almost anachronistic), had this to say: “We’ve only just begun striking narco-boats and putting narco-terrorists at the bottom of the ocean because they’ve been poisoning the American people.”Exactly where this leaves executive-congressional relations, no one is quite sure. Oversight may soon translate into real constraints on presidential action—or perhaps just shift the White House’s approach into less visible channels. But with both branches digging in, the fight over war powers hasn’t felt this personal, or this immediate, in years. History suggests these moments can alter U.S. policy for decades—though, as always in politics, tomorrow’s headlines may bring an entirely new crisis to the foreground.