Opinion: Congress Just Abdicated Its War-Declaration Authority — A Dangerous Precedent

After being largely out of session through much of the fall, the House of Representatives reconvened last week and, in two largely party-line votes, rejected modest resolutions meant to reaffirm Congress’s constitutional role in authorizing sustained military action. The defeat of those measures effectively ceded a substantial check on unilateral executive military action and raises urgent questions about oversight, escalation and accountability.

What Was On the Floor

Both measures were narrow and procedural but grounded in a clear constitutional premise: sustained military force requires Congress’s consent. One resolution would have required congressional authorization for continued U.S. operations against organizations the president has designated as terrorist groups operating in the Western Hemisphere. The other would have required an explicit congressional vote before U.S. forces could be used in hostilities in or against Venezuela. Neither bill barred emergency or self-defense responses, nor did either prescribe tactics.

Why It Matters

The timing was notable. U.S. forces have carried out repeated strikes on vessels in the Caribbean and Pacific, and the administration announced a sweeping blockade of Venezuelan oil shipments. Senior officials have publicly discussed the possibility of strikes on Venezuelan soil — actions that can rapidly escalate, invite miscalculation and entangle the United States in a conflict without a defined end state.

"...until Maduro cries uncle," the president's chief of staff, Susie Wiles, said in a Vanity Fair interview when describing the administration's intent to continue striking boats. That language moves the mission beyond mere interdiction toward an objective that resembles regime pressure or change.

Publicly, the administration frames these moves as a counter-narcotics campaign. The opioid and fentanyl crises are real and devastating—and they demand effective responses. But military action against Venezuela has long been questioned as an effective solution to fentanyl trafficking, which is fueled largely by production and distribution networks outside Venezuela.

Constitutional Lines—and Who Recognizes Them

Ironically, senior White House officials appear to acknowledge the constitutional boundary: in the same interview, Wiles said that military operations on Venezuelan territory would constitute war and therefore would require congressional approval. If the White House accepts that a land campaign would trigger Congress’s war powers, then the House’s refusal to assert those powers in advance is all the more troubling.

By declining to draw a clear line now, lawmakers risk making escalation easier and reassertion of legislative authority harder later. Without statutory authorization there is no shared framework to answer key questions: Where do operations stop? What would trigger strikes on land? What oversight mechanisms apply if Venezuela retaliates or U.S. personnel or partners are attacked?

A Call for Engagement

Having served in Congress after 9/11 and during the Iraq War debate, I understand the temptation to defer hard choices in moments of crisis. Robust congressional engagement did not eliminate mistakes, but it forced public debate, imposed oversight and provided a basis for accountability.

The House’s recent votes set a dangerous precedent. If this Congress will not insist on its constitutional prerogative when military action against a sovereign state in the Western Hemisphere is openly contemplated, then the role and relevance of Congress itself are rightly called into question.

Jane Harman served nine terms in Congress and was the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee. She also chaired the Commission on the National Defense Strategy.

Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.