The regime of Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela is malign and illegitimate. After Maduro stole the 2018 presidential election, nearly 60 countries joined the United States in recognizing Juan Guaidó as the rightful president of that country. Six years later, opposition leader Edmundo González defeated Maduro at the ballot box — but Maduro once again refused to accept the results.
Maduro and his henchmen have systematically stolen the wealth of his country and immiserated its people. But the Maduro regime is not merely a domestic problem for Venezuelans because it has directly and consistently threatened American interests. Maduro’s actions have sent millions of Venezuelans into exile, many of whom have ended up in America, straining the resources of state and local governments. For years, the regime has facilitated and profited from the trafficking of drugs at an industrial scale into the United States. Indeed, in 2020, Maduro was indicted by U.S. federal prosecutors for his association with the Cartel de los Soles — the “cartel of the suns.”
And Maduro has aligned Venezuela with a who’s who of anti-American despots and adversaries: Cuba, Iran, Russia, and China. He has brought into the Western Hemisphere their financial interests, their intelligence apparatuses, and even the possibility of the projection of their military power against us — a direct challenge to the longstanding U.S. policy, in the Monroe Doctrine, toward Old World intervention in the New.
The end of Nicolás Maduro’s regime, and its replacement by a democratically elected alternative, would be an unambiguous boon to the United States.
Yet, while the Trump administration’s current anti-Maduro policy is highly threatening to the regime, at the same time it is vague and contradictory.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio has called the administration’s actions a “counterdrug operation.” And the New York Times reported in mid-November that Rubio told House and Senate leaders that “ousting Mr. Maduro was not the administration’s objective.”
Nonetheless, the United States has assembled a powerful naval fleet, to include a carrier strike group and a Marine Expeditionary Unit, in the Caribbean. The Air Force has deployed fighter squadrons to the region. We are attacking and destroying suspected drug-smuggling boats on the high seas. And the president of the United States declared on social media that the airspace over Venezuela is closed — a move that has been traditionally understood as an act of war and one that can only be enforced by U.S. military power.
All of these moves indicate that the United States is strongly contemplating regime change — not merely a counterdrug campaign.
But if President Trump intends to use military force to topple Maduro, or coerce him into exile, he should go to Congress to ask for an authorization for the use of military force.
He should do this not only because such a request would place the decision to declare war, in both the spirit and the letter of our Constitution, where it belongs — Congress — but because this administration has made no sustained effort to explain to the American people why Venezuela’s current government warrants removal at the cost of American treasure and, very possibly, American lives.
The administration or its defenders might respond that Trump has made pointed public comments on the matter. There have been tweets from both the president and the secretary of defense. Officials may argue that responding to the very real ill effects of the drug cartels’ trafficking into America justifies an armed intervention. They point to the example of George H. W. Bush’s invasion of Panama in December 1989 as a precedent.
We are open to arguments that military force is both warranted and prudent to remove or weaken Maduro’s regime. But none of these arguments excuse the president from his duty to fully explain to the American people the reason for his actions, the possible alternatives and why they are insufficient, and his plan to see it all through to the end. Nor do these arguments excuse the president from requesting an authorization to wage offensive war against a foreign power from the primary branch of government in our system, Congress.
If the decades since 9/11 have taught us anything, it should be that seeking congressional authorization is not just the right thing, but the wise thing. In a democratic republic, the success of difficult overseas missions hinges on enduring public support. This means the case must be made to the American people that there is a nexus between their security and the president’s stated objectives. That is especially the case when the United States has not been threatened with a military attack. While no armed conflict can be gamed out with certainty, going to Congress obliges an administration to explain its aims, including what continued involvement the administration expects to have in Venezuela once Maduro is ousted.
The administration should understand that such a strategy would not be a display of weakness. A successful debate and vote in Congress for Trump’s moves would only strengthen the president’s hand. Indeed, the realization in Caracas that the United States is ready and able to use force may very well abrogate the need for it.