Trump, Venezuela and the War Powers Act

The constitutional problem here is that Congress lacks the power to order a President to terminate military action. The authority as Commander in Chief lies with the President under Article II. Congress has the power to declare war, but the last time it did so was 1942. Presidents have used military force countless times since, including long wars in Korea, Vietnam, and the Middle East.

If Congress opposes a military action, it can use its power of the purse to cut off funding for the conflict. Democrats in Congress reduced aid for South Vietnam in 1975, and the result not long afterward was a North Vietnamese invasion that conquered the South and sent tens of thousands of “boat people” adrift in the ocean. Congress can also impeach a President, but Democrats lack the votes.

That’s why the Senators are relying on the 1973 War Powers Act, which says the President must consult with Congress before committing troops to fight, and he must withdraw troops from a conflict after 60 days without authorization from Congress. The law in effect creates 535 Commanders in Chief.

The resolution passed over the veto of Richard Nixon, who thought it was unconstitutional and so have nearly all Presidents since. “We think it’s illegal,” said Ronald Reagan when Democrats tried to invoke it to block his deployment of the Navy to escort oil tankers in the Persian Gulf in 1987. Barack Obama claimed to be following the War Powers Act in Libya, though he didn’t wait for Congress’s permission to intervene in that conflict.

Numerous Presidents have used force without Congressional approval going back to Thomas Jefferson against the Barbary pirates. John F. Kennedy didn’t ask Congress before he decided to blockade Cuba, risking nuclear war. Ditto for Reagan’s invasion of Grenada. In the nearest analogy to Mr. Trump and Venezuela, George H.W. Bush sent troops in 1989 to depose and arrest the president of Panama, Manuel Noriega.

Mr. Trump is assembling a Navy flotilla in the Caribbean near Venezuela. Its purpose isn’t clear, though Mr. Trump said Sunday on CBS ‘s “60 Minutes” that dictator Nicolás Maduro’s days in power are numbered. The U.S. has blown up boats and a submarine it says were carrying drugs to the U.S. But it’s hard to believe Mr. Trump has assembled a fleet of this size merely to attack drug boats.

Venezuela’s democrats won the 2024 election, and helping them oust Mr. Maduro would be a service to the Americas and U.S. security. It would turn a regime allied with Cuba, China, Russia and Iran into an American ally. It would also allow the Venezuelan diaspora that has fled the regime’s poverty and cruelty to return home and rebuild. Once a wealthy nation, Venezuela could be again.

If Senators are opposed to the U.S. deposing Mr. Maduro, they ought to say so. But the Senators don’t want to do that because it might be unpopular to side with a dictator. It’s so much easier, politically, to charge that Mr. Trump is acting unlawfully than address the merits of U.S. policy.

None of this means Mr. Trump shouldn’t inform and cooperate with Congress on Venezuela. If he brings Congress with him at the start of hostilities, he will have more allies if events go awry, as they often do in war. Mr. Trump would also be wise to explain to the public what he is doing and why he thinks it’s in America’s interest to depose Mr. Maduro.

If Mr. Trump does pursue regime change in Venezuela, he will have to stay with it until the end. That means supporting a new democratic government against Maduro diehards allied with Cuban intelligence. Mr. Trump doesn’t want his version of JFK’s Bay of Pigs.

The Constitution gives the Commander in Chief enormous power to use the military without Congressional micromanagement, but it also means taking responsibility for failure.