Did we miss Congress’s authorization to use military force against Venezuelan drug-runners? On Monday, President Donald Trump announced a second strike this month against a vessel he said was carrying illegal drugs. An accompanying video shows a small boat floating in the water, apparently stationary, before it explodes in a fireball.
“The Strike occurred while these confirmed narcoterrorists from Venezuela were in International Waters transporting illegal narcotics (A DEADLY WEAPON POISONING AMERICANS!) headed to the U.S.,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.
Trump said the attack killed three people on board. Two weeks ago, he announced a similar strike that killed 11. The bombings follow a military buildup near Venezuela. This open-ended expansion of the president’s war powers echoes George W. Bush’s war on terror in the 2000s. But Bush made his case to the nation and went to Congress for permission. This president is bringing war on terror methods to the Western Hemisphere all by himself.
Trump’s submission to Congress on the strike earlier this month said: “It is not possible at this time to know the full scope and duration of military operations that will be necessary.” For legal justification, it pointed only to Trump’s “constitutional authority as Commander in Chief.” In other words: an undefined conflict without a clear endpoint.
The president has the power to repel military attacks on the United States without waiting for Congress. But to define drug-running as such stretches the concept beyond recognition. Traditionally the Coast Guard has intercepted suspected smugglers, and declaring a drug gang a terrorist group doesn’t by itself make it a military target. If drug-runners are now enemy combatants engaged in war, it’s unclear what would prevent military operations to kill them on U.S. soil without a trial.
Legal arguments don’t hold much weight in this situation. If the president wants to use force, he can find executive branch lawyers to bless the decision, and the courts won’t stop him. But the public ought to at least be aware of the political power grab.
The reasons for acting unilaterally — that the situation is an emergency, or that Congress already authorized the use of force for this purpose — don’t apply. We’ve noted before that use of military force abroad could be useful to Trump’s deportation agenda under the Alien Enemies Act.
Trump might have good arguments for the growing U.S. military presence around Venezuela, but the administration isn’t explaining why force is necessary, what the objectives are or when it will end. Welcome to War on Terror 2.0.
— The Washington Post
