Congressional Democratic leaders have issued cautious critiques of President Trump’s military operation in Venezuela, often foregrounding Nicolás Maduro’s abuses while stopping short of condemning U.S. intervention as illegitimate. Legal experts note that international law generally forbids military incursions without self-defense or U.N. Security Council approval, and the administration’s drug-trafficking rationale is disputed. Democrats have emphasized lack of congressional authorization, but critics argue they should instead reject the operation on moral and legal grounds and defend Venezuelan sovereignty.
Democratic Leaders’ Tepid Response Leaves Trump’s Venezuela Operation Largely Unchallenged
Democratic leaders are failing to stand up to Trump on Venezuela
Congressional Democratic leaders have criticized President Donald Trump’s startling military operation aimed at dislodging Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, but their statements have been cautious and uneven. That hesitancy risks leaving the administration politically stronger than it should be as it outlines a plan that critics describe as imperialistic and aimed at controlling Venezuela’s oil wealth.
“Nicolás Maduro is a criminal and authoritarian dictator who has oppressed the people of Venezuela for years,”Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said in a Saturday statement. “He is not the legitimate head of government. Undoubtedly, the rule of law and democracy have broken down in Venezuela and the people of that country deserve better.” Notably, Jeffries opens by condemning Maduro rather than denouncing the U.S. military operation itself.
Rather than focusing primarily on whether the administration followed domestic procedures, Democratic leaders should be making the moral and legal case against the operation itself.
International Law and the Limits on Military Action
It is true that Maduro is widely regarded as an autocrat. But international law generally bars military interventions inside another sovereign state except in cases of self-defense or with authorization from the United Nations Security Council. Legal scholars say the Trump administration’s argument that the operation is justified by efforts to curb drug trafficking does not meet those standards.
Jeffries’ emphasis on Maduro’s illegitimacy risks implying that an intervention is a lesser breach if the target is not democratically elected. That is mistaken: prohibitions on breaching sovereignty do not depend on whether a leader enjoys popular legitimacy. By that logic, the United States would not be justified in invading another country simply because that country’s leader lacked a popular mandate.
Domestic Process vs. Principle
When Jeffries turns to Mr. Trump’s conduct, his chief complaint is procedural: the administration did not seek formal congressional authorization and failed to properly notify Congress in advance. Democrats deserve credit for pursuing a resolution to constrain the president’s ability to carry out future operations in Venezuela without congressional approval. But focusing mainly on whether the president followed the right domestic process rather than on whether the operation is morally and legally justified yields an incomplete critique.
Jeffries also poses practical questions—How many U.S. troops remain on the ground? What does “America is going to run Venezuela until a judicious transition takes place” mean?—that implicitly accept the premise that a U.S. administration could legitimately govern Venezuela if only it had a clear plan and limited casualties. His warning that security requires more than military force, drawing lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan, is relevant but stops short of rejecting the premise of occupation outright.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a similar, measured rebuke. He denounced Maduro’s legitimacy, faulted the administration for not obtaining congressional authorization, and called a plan to “run Venezuela” without a credible strategy reckless. He also suggested the operation may be intended to distract from domestic controversies. While media-maneuvering is plausible, reducing an attempted takeover of another country to a mere political diversion understates the human and legal stakes involved.
What Democratic Leaders Should Say
What’s missing from current statements is a direct, plainspoken denunciation of the administration’s actions as unacceptable: unacceptable as an act of aggression, unacceptable as an imperial, resource-seeking enterprise, and unacceptable because it infringes on Venezuelan sovereignty. A robust antiwar posture should be grounded in defense of international law, a clear rejection of non-defensive regime change, and a commitment to diplomatic remedies and humanitarian assistance.
Part of the reason establishment Democrats struggle to respond more forcefully is that many accept the premise that the United States should act as a global enforcer—differing mostly over targets and tactics. It falls to progressives and civil society to insist on a clearer antiwar alternative: one that emphasizes legal constraints, respect for sovereignty, humanitarian relief for Venezuelans, and congressional oversight.
Originally published on MS NOW.
Help us improve.
