The law is clear.

[link removed]



As a companion piece to this week’s newsletter, listen to our rapid-response podcast on the legality of the Trump administration’s actions in Venezuela: what happened, the legal issues at play, and what Congress can do to respond. Available on YouTube

[link removed]

// Spotify

[link removed]

// Apple

[link removed]

// Substack

[link removed]





At his press conference

[link removed]

on the U.S. military operation in Venezuela to capture Nicolás Maduro, President Trump only once referred to the “law” purportedly justifying the attack: “These are the iron laws that have always determined global power.” It’s not clear what laws he was referring to. (“Might makes right” seems hardly an ideal legal code.)

Other administration officials have called Venezuela an imminent threat

[link removed]

or claimed that drug smuggling

[link removed]

by cartels served as a rationale.

As they scramble to get their stories straight, a bipartisan group in Congress is working toward a war powers resolution to reassert its constitutional power. It’s a rare moment that has seemed to expose Republican divisions and unite the Democrats. We will learn later this week whether Congress will step up to its constitutionally mandated role in matters of war and peace or roll over again.

At the Brennan Center, we don’t comment on foreign policy. Leave it to others to decry the new threats to annex Greenland, the talk of oil as a primary motive for the Venezuela operation, or the president’s open threats to Cuba, Colombia, and Mexico. We can state unequivocally that Maduro was an authoritarian and an illegitimate president. He stayed in power after losing an election. (Happy January 6!) Nevertheless, I won’t presume to predict what is best for Venezuela’s future.

But we do comment on the law — the actual law.

One thing is clear: Trump’s bombing and regime-decapitation operation in Venezuela was unconstitutional. The Constitution gives Congress, not the president, the power to decide when, where, and against whom the United States goes to war. It’s a core part of our system of checks and balances — and for good reason.

There were no threats to U.S. troops or imminent attack on our country preceding the Venezuela operation. Presidents properly have power to use defensive military force without waiting for a congressional vote. But the use of offensive force is constitutionally permissible only if Congress has authorized action, as it did before the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Congress and the president have pushed and pulled over what constitutes defensive or offensive force. But this was different. It was an attack on a sovereign country and the seizing of its leader, followed by a vow to now “run” Venezuela and exploit its oil. Undertaking hostilities, with all the risks and costs of war, shouldn’t depend on the whims of a single leader.

Lessons from the trauma of the Vietnam War led Congress to enact the War Powers Resolution in 1973, which reaffirms Congress’s primacy in decisions around the use of force and the president’s limited defensive role. That law also requires the president to consult with and report to Congress when using defensive force in advance of a congressional debate and vote. Despite having planned the operation for months, Trump didn’t even notify Congress before sending special forces into Maduro’s compound and bombing targets in and around Caracas, let alone consult with lawmakers or seek authorization. Leading up to the attack, according to Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY), the administration repeatedly and explicitly told members of Congress that it would not undertake regime-change operations.

To be sure, previous administrations have blurred the boundaries of war-making authorities. In 1989, under the George H. W. Bush administration, the United States invaded Panama, arrested that country's leader, Manuel Noriega, and indicted him for drug smuggling and money laundering, all in the name of self-defense. Bush, too, had not sought congressional approval. But in that case, Panama had declared

[link removed]

that it was in a “state of war” with the United States and had repeatedly attacked U.S. service members. The U.S. Senate had already adopted language calling for the use of military options to depose Panama’s government.

What happened in Panama was an overreach. What happened in Venezuela was a blatant violation of the constitutional order. There was no declaration of war, no attacks on American troops, not even threats of force (other than the threat, perversely cited by Trump administration officials, that Venezuela might try to defend itself against a U.S. invasion).

Courts considering the use of the Alien Enemies Act have repeatedly rejected the administration’s argument that Venezuela has committed acts of aggression that would justify the invocation of war powers. And it’s absurd to suggest that the indictments against Maduro for cocaine trafficking and firearm possession, first handed down years ago, create a basis for war and regime change.

It’s hard to avoid the impression that Trump did this at least in part to show he could. That’s the same reason he sent troops to American cities. Indeed, at his press conference Saturday, he free-associated that connection himself. As Rachel Maddow noted last night, each successive breach of the law bends the military more to his will.

We are in the early days of the Venezuela story. In Iraq, “shock and awe” looked great until the occupation quickly soured. Trump has expressed his willingness to use boots on the ground and further military attacks to “run” Venezuela. Last night he told

[link removed]

NBC, “We have to fix the country first. You can’t have an election.” But the internal politics of Venezuela are messy to say the least. There’s no guarantee that a transition back to democracy will be simple, smooth, or short.

The administration says that a war powers vote is not needed. “This wasn’t an invasion, we didn’t occupy a country,” explained

[link removed]

Secretary of State Marco Rubio. But neither the Constitution nor the War Powers Resolution conditions Congress’s role on the existence of a military occupation. In any event, Trump has made clear that we now “run” Venezuela, even naming Rubio as one of the overlords. This is different from a missile strike, say, to stop Houthi terrorists from bombing American ships. If Maduro’s reign produced instability, resulting in hundreds of thousands of migrants fleeing to the United States, who knows what kind of chaos could follow now?

On this, as on so much else, Congress must assert its central role in the constitutional order. Lawmakers have the power and responsibility to ensure that these solemn decisions of war and peace are made democratically, accountably, and in line with our Constitution.

Will Congress finally step up to reclaim its constitutional authority? Or will it shirk its responsibility once again? Just a few weeks ago, a resolution in the House to curtail Trump’s unilateral strikes on Venezuelan boats in the Caribbean failed 210–216.

Several members have introduced resolutions reaffirming Trump’s lack of power to use military force without congressional authorization. Those resolutions should be brought to a vote, and quickly. Congress must act before the situation escalates, and it must strengthen existing checks on presidential power to prevent future unilateral acts of aggression.

Let’s be clear-eyed: The president can veto even a successful war powers resolution. Only a two-thirds vote in each chamber could override. But history shows that congressional pushback can temper executive branch aggressiveness.

Our founders knew deeply the danger of putting the power of war in the wrong institutional hands. Many of them had lived through two major wars and had served themselves. It’s a main reason why they left the power of war-making with Congress.

In 1789, James Madison wrote

[link removed]

in a letter to Thomas Jefferson: “The Constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care, vested the question of war in the Legislature.”

No matter the justification the administration lands on, the recent operation runs directly counter to the Constitution and our deepest American values. It’s imperative that Congress acts to reassert the checks and balances that keep our democracy free.





How the Supreme Court Hurt Black Voter Turnout

For decades, the Voting Right Act of 1965 helped ensure equal ballot access for Black Americans. But in 2013, a Supreme Court ruling allowed jurisdictions with histories of racial discrimination in voting to change their election rules without federal approval. A Brennan Center analysis shows that since then, the turnout gap between white and nonwhite voters has grown dramatically in most of the counties covered by that decision. By 2022, “hundreds of thousands of ballots nationwide were never cast due to policies and practices with discriminatory effects that could potentially have been blocked by the preclearance requirement,” write the Brennan Center’s Kevin Morris and Columbia University’s Michael G. Miller. Read more

[link removed]

New York Legislature Addresses Correctional Crisis

Following two high-profile deaths of men in custody and a strike by corrections officers, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul signed a package of laws seeking to strengthen oversight of the state’s correctional facilities and improve transparency, including by installing more surveillance cameras and expanding the state’s independent oversight agency. The changes are welcome, but, as Brianna Seid and Tiffany Sanabia write, New York “must continue to commit funding and resources” to support reforms and “pass laws that promote rehabilitation and dignity in its correctional system.” Read more

[link removed]

Trump Administration Cuts to Crime Prevention Programs Add Risks for 2026

As criminal justice experts consider what 2026 will bring regarding crime and policing, one uncertainty is the effect of cuts made by the Justice Department in 2025 to grants for organizations and programs focused on community safety, school violence prevention, and training for rural police officers. “These are programs that people of both parties should agree are an important way to reduce gun violence, an important way to support communities and reduce crime,” Ames Grawert told NPR. “We were just starting to understand how these programs work, how to improve them.” Read more

[link removed]

Supreme Court Blocks Troop Deployment

President Trump said last week that he would withdraw, at least for now, National Guard troops from Chicago, Los Angeles, and Portland. The move followed a setback dealt to the administration by the Supreme Court, which refused to allow Trump to deploy National Guard troops in Chicago. The decision signals “a profound level of discomfort among the majority of justices with the way that President Trump is trying to use the military domestically,” Elizabeth Goitein told CNN, “that would most likely carry over if the president were to try to invoke the Insurrection Act.” Read more

[link removed]





Podcast

An Emergency in Venezuela

[link removed]

Over the weekend, the Trump administration launched a military operation in Venezuela to capture President Nicolás Maduro. Such an aggressive use of war powers without congressional consent is alarming and, in many ways, unprecedented. Trump is declaring victory. Critics are decrying a breach of checks and balances. What are the implications of this unilateral abuse of military force, and what could happen next? Watch or listen as experts discuss what happened, break down the legal issues at play, and reveal what Congress can do right now to respond. Available on YouTube

[link removed]

// Spotify

[link removed]

// Apple

[link removed]

// SUBSTACK

[link removed]

2025 in Review

[link removed]

This past year, we saw extraordinary threats to American democracy: executive power grabs, attacks on the freedom to vote, and more. Yet we also saw a growing response from courts and citizens. Brennan Center experts break down what happened and what might come next. Watch or listen on YouTube

[link removed]

// Spotify

[link removed]

// Apple

[link removed]

// SUBSTACK

[link removed]





News

Margy O’Herron on attacks on immigration judges’ independence // BLOOMBERG LAW

[link removed]

Wendy Weiser on threats to upcoming elections // MS NOW

[link removed]

Katherine Yon Ebright on the legality of U.S. military intervention in Venezuela // THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR

[link removed]

Feedback on this newsletter? Email us at [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]







[link removed]

Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law

120 Broadway, Suite 1750 New York, NY 10271

646-292-8310

tel:646-292-8310

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Support Brennan Center

[link removed]

View Online

[link removed]

Want to change how you receive these emails or unsubscribe? Click here

[link removed]

to update your preferences.

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]