Trump & his admin have no idea what they could be in for. When we're running another country and un-nationalizing the oil industry, it's more than an intrusion. It's an invasion. There's bound to be conflict.
Plus, what great propaganda they created for one Mr. Vladimir Putin. So, yes, Congress needs to reclaim the full intent of the War Powers Act.
None of this would have happened if Venezuela had no oil and everyone in Venezuela knows that. Part of the larger delusion is that Maduro had no support. I expect to see a civil war in response to the "Vichy Venezuelans" who collaborate with the US. And we don't have the resources to fight that civil uprising.
Bush bombed Iraq illegally because he LIED about WMD to get congressional approval, unexpectedly created Isis who has terrorized the world for 2 decades and he did it because Iraq started selling oil for Euros rather than $US (a little known fact). The US didn't give a poop about Kuwait.
Clinton bombed Serbia under the pretense of humanitarian aid, but he was secretly building an oil pipeline to destabilize Russia by piping oil from the Caspian Sea into Europe. The oil infrastructure was built before the war was started. The US didn't give a poop about Kosovo.
Obama bombed Libya because Qaddafi was preparing to start an African currency back by GOLD to compete with the $US as the World Reserve Currency. They US didn't give a poop about the people of Libya.
Meanwhile, Trump surgically and concisely removed Maduro, a true dictator whose leadership was NOT recognized by over 60 international countries, had sanctions placed on him by the International community, he was selling oil to Russia and China, circumventing those sanctions and finally, in January 2025, Biden had a $25Million bounty placed on his head.
Trump did what nobody else could do, and more importantly, he it surgically, and concisely, without a long, drawn out war. Literally liberated an entire country in a matter of hours. UNPRECEDENTED.
And now American companies will reap the benefits of servicing more oil than any other country on earth holds.
How do you support the statement that Trump's removal of Maduro has nothing to do with American interests?
You can actually argue that Trumps move ONLY has American interests in mind, and he did a better job than any other previous President.
The Trump Derangement Syndrome really has to stop. He is going to be remembered as a good president when the history books are written, and people finally get to see through all of the propaganda and maligning of the media.
But the examples you list from the Bush, Clinton, and Obama can at least be argued, rightly or wrongly, to have been undertaken in what they perceived as Western interests. It's hard to say the same about Trump.
He's restraining Ukraine’s ability to defeat Russia, limiting Israel against Hamas, and negotiated a withdrawal from Afghanistan that handed the country back to the Taliban. So whatever reason he has for removing Maduro it has nothing to do with removing "true dictators." He accommodates dictators.
Can only imagine what dictator he's planning to remove from Greenland...
As for “Trump Derangement,” fact-based criticism is not derangement. What comes closer to that is condemning certain actions as illegal by other presidents, while supporting the same actions with Trump. You can't have it both ways.
I hate the Democratic Party too, but judged by everything we see every day, Trump stands out as a uniquely damaging figure in modern Western politics.
What Trump did in Venezuela absolutely has Western interests in mind. Most people just don't see the scope and genius of the action.
By cutting off Venezuela's oil supply from China and Russia, Trump has effectively and surgically cut off their richest oil supply making it much harder for China to wage a war against Taiwan or anyone else, and it also cripples their ability to fuel any sort of opposition whether it's AI and information wars, physical wars or any other moves where energy is the central need.
The reason he is not officially flaunting this as an offensive with China as the target is probably because they are using the "narco terrorism" label so that Bejing cannot claim that the US is aiming for them.
Trump's move is actually a genius game of chess and he just check mated Eastern powers with one surgical strike.
The irony here is that Trump wants to govern the USA like a South American dictatorship.
In fact, when Trump first came to power in 2016, many political scientists and analysts in the U.S. began arguing for the first time in modern history that Trump's ideas and rhetoric about governance, institutions, and law are similar to authoritarian regimes in parts of South America.
Moreover, Trump’s core supporters are not freedom-loving anti-authoritarians. They are right-wing authoritarians who oppose left-wing authoritarianism not because they reject authoritarianism as such, but because they see it as the wrong type of authoritarianism.
I wonder how much of the anger towards Maduro is envy on the Orange One's part. He'd probably like to rule the US like Maduro was ruling Venezuela. And to steal as freely and openly.
Thanks for this summary of the imbecilic catastrophe in waiting that the coming civil war in Venezuela is likely to become.
However every time I hear anyone mention "impeachment" I laugh till I cry. The impeachment clause in our Constitution is a dead letter law with regard to the presidency.
Whether this action is popular or unpopular with the American people is irrelevant. What matters is what Congress does about it. My guess is that the Democrats will light their hair on fire faster than talking heads over at MSNBC and the Republicans will do nothing. There will be no impeachment let alone any Senate trial.
Besides there are precedents for Trump's actions. Remember Narco-Presidente Noriega of Panama? Operation Just Cause (the 1989 invasion of Panama) did not receive explicit, prior congressional authorization; President George H.W. Bush acted under his inherent presidential powers, citing self-defense and treaty obligations, though Congress later passed a resolution expressing support for the U.S. troops and the goals of restoring democracy, indicating bipartisan approval after the fact. Our Republican Congress will likely do the same with Rand Paul being the only one to vote against it.
One difference is that the Canal Zone was still US territory back then. The theory that US interests and personnel were threatened by Noriega's narcocleptocracy holds a little bit more water. A very little bit.
Thanks for reminding me of that fact. I had forgotten that the full transfer of the Canal Zone was not completed until 1999. Also George H W Bush had a pretty seasoned and professional team of advisors--- whereas Trump has a clown car of mediocrities running the show.
The problem is that, when a President takes office already having earned a death penalty by attacking Congress in a coup attempt, accountability is a fiction.
One could argue that a Congress which fails to impeach and convict the President for his gross violations of the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution has tacitly given its authorization for the war.
People should let their representatives know that any member who does not call for an impeachment vote will be asked, “Why are you giving your tacit approval for the President’s illegal war?”
When Trump uttered the phrase that we’re “Making Venezuela Great Again”, I couldn’t believe my ears. Even Trump’s base didn’t vote for this. In addition to being patently illegal and unjust, this war will be catastrophically unpopular across the entire electorate; it is the opposite of his “America First” promise.
His base has no beliefs. A week ago we were done with Bush and endless wars and being the world's policeman. Today they'll cheer "arresting" a foreign leader.
There’s a segment of his base that falls into that category, blind loyalty. But that’s maybe 25% of the electorate give or take. He didn’t win with 25%. There are millions more whose votes were contingent on their belief that he’s going to tame inflation, secure the border and deliver on his promise of “no foreign wars”. Those people will be unhappy.
If one were to actually buy Rubio’s explanation, then the plan to take over the running of the country and the oil appropriations would be in opposition to that! The whole plan and execution is illegal and way beyond the war powers act!
Trump has already committed far more serious acts that failed to result in impeachment or disqualification. Most notably, the failure to bar him from office after January 6 effectively gutted impeachment as a meaningful deterrent. That precedent makes future impeachments harder to justify and easily dismissed as partisan theater.
That’s why pursuing Trump now over narrower or technical claims isn’t especially productive. The real problem is institutional: our political system has shown it cannot enforce clear red lines against abuses of power. Until the fundamental failures that led to this are addressed, the drift toward lawlessness and authoritarianism will continue regardless of all the performative calls for impeachment.
It would continue even if Trump was removed from office.
I don't in any way have the legal background to know what is or is not permissible and under which circumstances. I would imagine that there will be many who argue both for and against the legality of the actions taken with passion and examples with the other side(s) being able to raise counterpoints. That doesn't mean it won't be worth discussing (because it is a serious matter) but I suspect most will succumb to confirmation bias based on their own feelings about Trump rather than being objective.
I do wonder though... as you point out: "...In 2011, he adamantly condemned Obama’s unauthorized war in Libya. In 2021, he was similarly critical of the Biden administration’s unauthorized airstrikes in Syria..."
Did you raise the same arguments against actions taken then? Or are you only now raising concerns because it is Trump?
Yes, I did, and there is of course no basis for you to insinuate otherwise. In fact I got into some rather heated arguments about the unconstitutionality of Obama's war in Libya. Though you'd have to confirm that with my college roommate because that's where I was 15 years ago.
Admittedly, I did not have a contemporaneous reaction to the Korean War or the invasion of Panama.
It was a genuine question. I find too often that outrage for Trump (or Obama or Biden, but particularly for Trump) is raised by those who have remained silent in the past over similar situations but suddenly feel the desire to raise issues and / or indignation when it is someone from "the other camp". As an example, it doesn't take a genius to realise that Trump is not really a real Free Speech enthusiast. But WAY too many who are pointing this out have been and remain silent while many Democrats have explicitly spoken out against the First Amendment and there were clearly covert and immoral actions taken to silence opinions on social media etc during the previous administration. That, to me, is laughable and removes any credibility.
I appreciate you taking the time to respond. I have found that other contributors to this substack have not bothered to respond unless it is a comment that is in favour of the argument(s) in articles they have written. Happy to take you at your word that you've held similar views in the past. Thank you.
Most of us on this site come from the center-right and have a track record of criticizing the "left" that is easily googable (I have been a writer for over quarter of a century). So usually when someone poses such questions it is just whataboutery and/or bogus moral equivalence and it is a waste of time to engage. Trump is orders of magnitude above anything we have witnessed before and those who can't begin by acknowledging that are usually just too cynical or too blinkered and are not persuadable.
But this cuts both ways. Yes, Trump apologists rely heavily on whataboutism, but many Trump opponents respond with evasion. Specifically, they evade the fact that they don’t actually have counter-ideas to Trump.
If one truly believes that Trump is “orders of magnitude worse than anything we’ve seen before,” then that belief necessarily implies something fundamental has gone wrong in politics to have allowed this to happen in the first place.
So, the obvious question is: do any mainstream voices today actually understand what that underlying problem is? Do they have serious ideas to address it?
Calls for impeachment, especially given the recent and well-known failures of that strategy, read more like an admission that the answer is no.
Even if Trump were impeached, nothing fundamental would be addressed. The conditions that produced him would remain intact and someone even worse would just replace him.
Likewise, I thank you for your response (which, if I am not mistaken, is the first time you have responded to any of my comments).
I can appreciate that you may often have your time wasted with trolls or others who have the opposite of TDS (and are just as insufferable as those who have TDS). I have a list of things that I think are dead wrong with what Trump has done. I also have a list of things with which I agree. I can certainly agree that some things he is doing are worthy of strong condemnation - and it is right to point them out. But I am not convinced that what he has done is orders of magnitude worse than some others who have held the office of POTUS (including both Biden and Obama). It may be going back perhaps too far for a fair comparison because times have changed but Andrew Jackson certainly springs to mind. And it's impossible (and / or unfair) to ignore Trump's similarities in trying to "stretch" POTUS powers with what FDR tried (and in many cases succeeded). Likewise, there are enough similarities with Venezuela to Biden's and Obama's military actions to also show that Trump isn't unique in that regard.
Again, I think criticism is often due. But I am not (yet) in agreement that Trump is orders of magnitude above anything we have witnessed before.
This is all arguments about why it isn't _wise_ to abuse War Powers legislation like that, but it doesn't actually prove that it isn't a textualist legal loophole, does it?
I read the article figuring it was just another wordy hit piece on Trump. I wasn't disappointed.
First, I do agree that Congress has abdicated much of its power to the Executive branch. The President using these powers is not impeachable.
Second, not only was Maduro indicted, the next administration's DOJ put a $25 million bounty on his head. Not exactly a "ham sandwich".
Third, Congress gave the President the power to declare an organization a FTO. Maduro was the head of a FTO. Again, Congress may not like this President using that power, but not impeachable.
Fourth, our action in Panama in 1990, and the parallels to Venezuela today. Federal courts found that the actions taken by the President in Panama were legal both within US law and International law. Again, not impeachable.
It will be interesting to see if you incorporpprate all these facts into your article. Thanks.
I got this from the internet, but even if it's half true, it should suffice so I'll just leave this here:
Below is a list of U.S. presidents who have deployed airstrikes or military actions without specific Congressional approval.
This list highlights presidents and their most notable actions. All of these actions were justified under the president’s constitutional authority as Commander in Chief or under previous authorizations such as the 2001 or 2002 AUMF (Authorization for Use of Military Force) None of these are predicated by congressional votes beforehand:
Harry S. Truman
• Korea (1950) – Deployed U.S. forces and authorized airstrikes in Korea without formal Congressional declaration of war.
Dwight D. Eisenhower
• Lebanon (1958) – Ordered U.S. air and naval forces into Lebanon to stabilize a political crisis.
John F. Kennedy
• Cuba (1961 & 1962) – Bay of Pigs (though indirectly supported), and later the Cuban Missile Crisis military posture.
Lyndon B. Johnson
• Vietnam (1964) – Gulf of Tonkin airstrikes occurred before the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was passed.
Richard Nixon
• Cambodia & Laos (1969–1973) – Conducted secret and unauthorized bombing campaigns as part of Vietnam War.
Ronald Reagan
• Libya (1986) – Bombed Tripoli and Benghazi in retaliation for the Berlin discotheque bombing.
• Grenada (1983) – Invasion and airstrikes without prior congressional approval.
George H. W. Bush
• Panama (1989) – Invasion and airstrikes to oust Manuel Noriega.
• Iraq (1990 & 1991) – Airstrikes began before Congress passed a resolution approving Desert Storm.
Bill Clinton
• Bosnia (1995) – NATO airstrikes in Bosnia without Congressional approval.
• Iraq (1998) – Operation Desert Fox airstrikes against Saddam Hussein.
• Kosovo (1999) – 78-day NATO bombing campaign without Congressional approval.
George W. Bush
• Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia (2001 to 2009) – Authorized drone strikes relying on the 2001 AUMF but without specific country-by-country authorization.
Barack Obama
• Libya (2011) – Air campaign as part of NATO action to topple Gaddafi, without Congressional approval.
• Syria, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen (2014 to 2016) – Airstrikes against ISIS and other terror groups under 2001 AUMF, no new authorization sought.
Donald Trump
• Syria (2017 & 2018) – Airstrikes against Assad regime over chemical weapons, without Congressional approval.
• Iraq (2020) – Ordered airstrike that killed Iranian General Qassem Soleimani.
• Somalia & Yemen (ongoing) – Continued air campaigns under prior AUMFs.
Summary:
Every U.S. president from Truman to Biden has authorized military airstrikes or operations without direct and new Congressional approval at some point during their presidency.
I don't see Washington's anti-war stance as any more relevant to the modern day as his ownership of slaves. What made sense in 1790 does not make sense in 2026.
Frankly, I'd rather we fight sensible but illegal wars than to fight legal but illogical wars. Trump's sin here (so far) is technical and minor compared with past administrations. Time will tell if he turns victory into a blunder.
Trump & his admin have no idea what they could be in for. When we're running another country and un-nationalizing the oil industry, it's more than an intrusion. It's an invasion. There's bound to be conflict.
Plus, what great propaganda they created for one Mr. Vladimir Putin. So, yes, Congress needs to reclaim the full intent of the War Powers Act.
None of this would have happened if Venezuela had no oil and everyone in Venezuela knows that. Part of the larger delusion is that Maduro had no support. I expect to see a civil war in response to the "Vichy Venezuelans" who collaborate with the US. And we don't have the resources to fight that civil uprising.
Did you complain when the Bushes invaded Iraq illegally for oil, or when Clinton bombed Serbia to build an oil pipeline?
Or when Obama illegally dropped bombs on numerous countries?
No because one can argue that those were all good things and in line with American foreign policy goals.
Whatever Trump is doing in Venezuela (or about to do in Greenland) has nothing to do with American interests.
Bush bombed Iraq illegally because he LIED about WMD to get congressional approval, unexpectedly created Isis who has terrorized the world for 2 decades and he did it because Iraq started selling oil for Euros rather than $US (a little known fact). The US didn't give a poop about Kuwait.
Clinton bombed Serbia under the pretense of humanitarian aid, but he was secretly building an oil pipeline to destabilize Russia by piping oil from the Caspian Sea into Europe. The oil infrastructure was built before the war was started. The US didn't give a poop about Kosovo.
Obama bombed Libya because Qaddafi was preparing to start an African currency back by GOLD to compete with the $US as the World Reserve Currency. They US didn't give a poop about the people of Libya.
Meanwhile, Trump surgically and concisely removed Maduro, a true dictator whose leadership was NOT recognized by over 60 international countries, had sanctions placed on him by the International community, he was selling oil to Russia and China, circumventing those sanctions and finally, in January 2025, Biden had a $25Million bounty placed on his head.
Trump did what nobody else could do, and more importantly, he it surgically, and concisely, without a long, drawn out war. Literally liberated an entire country in a matter of hours. UNPRECEDENTED.
And now American companies will reap the benefits of servicing more oil than any other country on earth holds.
How do you support the statement that Trump's removal of Maduro has nothing to do with American interests?
You can actually argue that Trumps move ONLY has American interests in mind, and he did a better job than any other previous President.
The Trump Derangement Syndrome really has to stop. He is going to be remembered as a good president when the history books are written, and people finally get to see through all of the propaganda and maligning of the media.
But the examples you list from the Bush, Clinton, and Obama can at least be argued, rightly or wrongly, to have been undertaken in what they perceived as Western interests. It's hard to say the same about Trump.
He's restraining Ukraine’s ability to defeat Russia, limiting Israel against Hamas, and negotiated a withdrawal from Afghanistan that handed the country back to the Taliban. So whatever reason he has for removing Maduro it has nothing to do with removing "true dictators." He accommodates dictators.
Can only imagine what dictator he's planning to remove from Greenland...
As for “Trump Derangement,” fact-based criticism is not derangement. What comes closer to that is condemning certain actions as illegal by other presidents, while supporting the same actions with Trump. You can't have it both ways.
I hate the Democratic Party too, but judged by everything we see every day, Trump stands out as a uniquely damaging figure in modern Western politics.
What Trump did in Venezuela absolutely has Western interests in mind. Most people just don't see the scope and genius of the action.
By cutting off Venezuela's oil supply from China and Russia, Trump has effectively and surgically cut off their richest oil supply making it much harder for China to wage a war against Taiwan or anyone else, and it also cripples their ability to fuel any sort of opposition whether it's AI and information wars, physical wars or any other moves where energy is the central need.
The reason he is not officially flaunting this as an offensive with China as the target is probably because they are using the "narco terrorism" label so that Bejing cannot claim that the US is aiming for them.
Trump's move is actually a genius game of chess and he just check mated Eastern powers with one surgical strike.
The irony here is that Trump wants to govern the USA like a South American dictatorship.
In fact, when Trump first came to power in 2016, many political scientists and analysts in the U.S. began arguing for the first time in modern history that Trump's ideas and rhetoric about governance, institutions, and law are similar to authoritarian regimes in parts of South America.
Moreover, Trump’s core supporters are not freedom-loving anti-authoritarians. They are right-wing authoritarians who oppose left-wing authoritarianism not because they reject authoritarianism as such, but because they see it as the wrong type of authoritarianism.
I wonder how much of the anger towards Maduro is envy on the Orange One's part. He'd probably like to rule the US like Maduro was ruling Venezuela. And to steal as freely and openly.
Thanks for this summary of the imbecilic catastrophe in waiting that the coming civil war in Venezuela is likely to become.
However every time I hear anyone mention "impeachment" I laugh till I cry. The impeachment clause in our Constitution is a dead letter law with regard to the presidency.
Whether this action is popular or unpopular with the American people is irrelevant. What matters is what Congress does about it. My guess is that the Democrats will light their hair on fire faster than talking heads over at MSNBC and the Republicans will do nothing. There will be no impeachment let alone any Senate trial.
Besides there are precedents for Trump's actions. Remember Narco-Presidente Noriega of Panama? Operation Just Cause (the 1989 invasion of Panama) did not receive explicit, prior congressional authorization; President George H.W. Bush acted under his inherent presidential powers, citing self-defense and treaty obligations, though Congress later passed a resolution expressing support for the U.S. troops and the goals of restoring democracy, indicating bipartisan approval after the fact. Our Republican Congress will likely do the same with Rand Paul being the only one to vote against it.
One difference is that the Canal Zone was still US territory back then. The theory that US interests and personnel were threatened by Noriega's narcocleptocracy holds a little bit more water. A very little bit.
Thanks for reminding me of that fact. I had forgotten that the full transfer of the Canal Zone was not completed until 1999. Also George H W Bush had a pretty seasoned and professional team of advisors--- whereas Trump has a clown car of mediocrities running the show.
I learned from listening to David French that the Panamanians had detained and were holding a marine, too. So a direct attack on US forces.
The problem is that, when a President takes office already having earned a death penalty by attacking Congress in a coup attempt, accountability is a fiction.
Speaking from a UK perspective, that is an excellent, insightful piece of writing.
One could argue that a Congress which fails to impeach and convict the President for his gross violations of the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution has tacitly given its authorization for the war.
People should let their representatives know that any member who does not call for an impeachment vote will be asked, “Why are you giving your tacit approval for the President’s illegal war?”
When Trump uttered the phrase that we’re “Making Venezuela Great Again”, I couldn’t believe my ears. Even Trump’s base didn’t vote for this. In addition to being patently illegal and unjust, this war will be catastrophically unpopular across the entire electorate; it is the opposite of his “America First” promise.
His base has no beliefs. A week ago we were done with Bush and endless wars and being the world's policeman. Today they'll cheer "arresting" a foreign leader.
There’s a segment of his base that falls into that category, blind loyalty. But that’s maybe 25% of the electorate give or take. He didn’t win with 25%. There are millions more whose votes were contingent on their belief that he’s going to tame inflation, secure the border and deliver on his promise of “no foreign wars”. Those people will be unhappy.
If one were to actually buy Rubio’s explanation, then the plan to take over the running of the country and the oil appropriations would be in opposition to that! The whole plan and execution is illegal and way beyond the war powers act!
Trump has already committed far more serious acts that failed to result in impeachment or disqualification. Most notably, the failure to bar him from office after January 6 effectively gutted impeachment as a meaningful deterrent. That precedent makes future impeachments harder to justify and easily dismissed as partisan theater.
That’s why pursuing Trump now over narrower or technical claims isn’t especially productive. The real problem is institutional: our political system has shown it cannot enforce clear red lines against abuses of power. Until the fundamental failures that led to this are addressed, the drift toward lawlessness and authoritarianism will continue regardless of all the performative calls for impeachment.
It would continue even if Trump was removed from office.
I don't in any way have the legal background to know what is or is not permissible and under which circumstances. I would imagine that there will be many who argue both for and against the legality of the actions taken with passion and examples with the other side(s) being able to raise counterpoints. That doesn't mean it won't be worth discussing (because it is a serious matter) but I suspect most will succumb to confirmation bias based on their own feelings about Trump rather than being objective.
I do wonder though... as you point out: "...In 2011, he adamantly condemned Obama’s unauthorized war in Libya. In 2021, he was similarly critical of the Biden administration’s unauthorized airstrikes in Syria..."
Did you raise the same arguments against actions taken then? Or are you only now raising concerns because it is Trump?
Yes, I did, and there is of course no basis for you to insinuate otherwise. In fact I got into some rather heated arguments about the unconstitutionality of Obama's war in Libya. Though you'd have to confirm that with my college roommate because that's where I was 15 years ago.
Admittedly, I did not have a contemporaneous reaction to the Korean War or the invasion of Panama.
It was a genuine question. I find too often that outrage for Trump (or Obama or Biden, but particularly for Trump) is raised by those who have remained silent in the past over similar situations but suddenly feel the desire to raise issues and / or indignation when it is someone from "the other camp". As an example, it doesn't take a genius to realise that Trump is not really a real Free Speech enthusiast. But WAY too many who are pointing this out have been and remain silent while many Democrats have explicitly spoken out against the First Amendment and there were clearly covert and immoral actions taken to silence opinions on social media etc during the previous administration. That, to me, is laughable and removes any credibility.
I appreciate you taking the time to respond. I have found that other contributors to this substack have not bothered to respond unless it is a comment that is in favour of the argument(s) in articles they have written. Happy to take you at your word that you've held similar views in the past. Thank you.
Most of us on this site come from the center-right and have a track record of criticizing the "left" that is easily googable (I have been a writer for over quarter of a century). So usually when someone poses such questions it is just whataboutery and/or bogus moral equivalence and it is a waste of time to engage. Trump is orders of magnitude above anything we have witnessed before and those who can't begin by acknowledging that are usually just too cynical or too blinkered and are not persuadable.
But this cuts both ways. Yes, Trump apologists rely heavily on whataboutism, but many Trump opponents respond with evasion. Specifically, they evade the fact that they don’t actually have counter-ideas to Trump.
If one truly believes that Trump is “orders of magnitude worse than anything we’ve seen before,” then that belief necessarily implies something fundamental has gone wrong in politics to have allowed this to happen in the first place.
So, the obvious question is: do any mainstream voices today actually understand what that underlying problem is? Do they have serious ideas to address it?
Calls for impeachment, especially given the recent and well-known failures of that strategy, read more like an admission that the answer is no.
Even if Trump were impeached, nothing fundamental would be addressed. The conditions that produced him would remain intact and someone even worse would just replace him.
Likewise, I thank you for your response (which, if I am not mistaken, is the first time you have responded to any of my comments).
I can appreciate that you may often have your time wasted with trolls or others who have the opposite of TDS (and are just as insufferable as those who have TDS). I have a list of things that I think are dead wrong with what Trump has done. I also have a list of things with which I agree. I can certainly agree that some things he is doing are worthy of strong condemnation - and it is right to point them out. But I am not convinced that what he has done is orders of magnitude worse than some others who have held the office of POTUS (including both Biden and Obama). It may be going back perhaps too far for a fair comparison because times have changed but Andrew Jackson certainly springs to mind. And it's impossible (and / or unfair) to ignore Trump's similarities in trying to "stretch" POTUS powers with what FDR tried (and in many cases succeeded). Likewise, there are enough similarities with Venezuela to Biden's and Obama's military actions to also show that Trump isn't unique in that regard.
Again, I think criticism is often due. But I am not (yet) in agreement that Trump is orders of magnitude above anything we have witnessed before.
Just don’t hold your breathe…
From the viewpoint of March 1, 2026 … this article is quaint !!
This is all arguments about why it isn't _wise_ to abuse War Powers legislation like that, but it doesn't actually prove that it isn't a textualist legal loophole, does it?
I read the article figuring it was just another wordy hit piece on Trump. I wasn't disappointed.
First, I do agree that Congress has abdicated much of its power to the Executive branch. The President using these powers is not impeachable.
Second, not only was Maduro indicted, the next administration's DOJ put a $25 million bounty on his head. Not exactly a "ham sandwich".
Third, Congress gave the President the power to declare an organization a FTO. Maduro was the head of a FTO. Again, Congress may not like this President using that power, but not impeachable.
Fourth, our action in Panama in 1990, and the parallels to Venezuela today. Federal courts found that the actions taken by the President in Panama were legal both within US law and International law. Again, not impeachable.
It will be interesting to see if you incorporpprate all these facts into your article. Thanks.
I got this from the internet, but even if it's half true, it should suffice so I'll just leave this here:
Below is a list of U.S. presidents who have deployed airstrikes or military actions without specific Congressional approval.
This list highlights presidents and their most notable actions. All of these actions were justified under the president’s constitutional authority as Commander in Chief or under previous authorizations such as the 2001 or 2002 AUMF (Authorization for Use of Military Force) None of these are predicated by congressional votes beforehand:
Harry S. Truman
• Korea (1950) – Deployed U.S. forces and authorized airstrikes in Korea without formal Congressional declaration of war.
Dwight D. Eisenhower
• Lebanon (1958) – Ordered U.S. air and naval forces into Lebanon to stabilize a political crisis.
John F. Kennedy
• Cuba (1961 & 1962) – Bay of Pigs (though indirectly supported), and later the Cuban Missile Crisis military posture.
Lyndon B. Johnson
• Vietnam (1964) – Gulf of Tonkin airstrikes occurred before the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was passed.
Richard Nixon
• Cambodia & Laos (1969–1973) – Conducted secret and unauthorized bombing campaigns as part of Vietnam War.
Ronald Reagan
• Libya (1986) – Bombed Tripoli and Benghazi in retaliation for the Berlin discotheque bombing.
• Grenada (1983) – Invasion and airstrikes without prior congressional approval.
George H. W. Bush
• Panama (1989) – Invasion and airstrikes to oust Manuel Noriega.
• Iraq (1990 & 1991) – Airstrikes began before Congress passed a resolution approving Desert Storm.
Bill Clinton
• Bosnia (1995) – NATO airstrikes in Bosnia without Congressional approval.
• Iraq (1998) – Operation Desert Fox airstrikes against Saddam Hussein.
• Kosovo (1999) – 78-day NATO bombing campaign without Congressional approval.
George W. Bush
• Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia (2001 to 2009) – Authorized drone strikes relying on the 2001 AUMF but without specific country-by-country authorization.
Barack Obama
• Libya (2011) – Air campaign as part of NATO action to topple Gaddafi, without Congressional approval.
• Syria, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen (2014 to 2016) – Airstrikes against ISIS and other terror groups under 2001 AUMF, no new authorization sought.
Donald Trump
• Syria (2017 & 2018) – Airstrikes against Assad regime over chemical weapons, without Congressional approval.
• Iraq (2020) – Ordered airstrike that killed Iranian General Qassem Soleimani.
Joe Biden
• Syria (2021 & 2022) – Airstrikes on Iranian-backed militia groups.
• Somalia & Yemen (ongoing) – Continued air campaigns under prior AUMFs.
Summary:
Every U.S. president from Truman to Biden has authorized military airstrikes or operations without direct and new Congressional approval at some point during their presidency.
I don't see Washington's anti-war stance as any more relevant to the modern day as his ownership of slaves. What made sense in 1790 does not make sense in 2026.
Frankly, I'd rather we fight sensible but illegal wars than to fight legal but illogical wars. Trump's sin here (so far) is technical and minor compared with past administrations. Time will tell if he turns victory into a blunder.
His ownership of slaves is no longer relevant because we amended the constitution to outlaw slavery.
my point is that things change and we don’t need to defer to the Founders as if they were Gods writing the Commandments