Congress is stepping up to reclaim its constitutional authority over war-making after U.S. military actions near Venezuela sparked fierce debate over legality and transparency.
Recent U.S. strikes on suspected drug-smuggling boats in the region have fueled the push for a War Powers vote, with lawmakers introducing S.J.Res. 90 to demand the withdrawal of forces from unauthorized hostilities, Military.com reported.
Questions linger over whether these strikes, some allegedly resulting in deaths after initial attacks, targeted lawful combatants or defenseless civilians. The administration's refusal to release unedited footage only deepens skepticism about their claims.
Legal Battleground of War Powers
The Constitution clearly assigns Congress the power to declare war, yet the White House often leans on vague executive authority under Article II. S.J.Res. 90 aims to enforce the War Powers Resolution, demanding legislative approval for sustained military action.
Reports from the Congressional Research Service highlight the administration's stance that drug trafficking tied to Maduro poses a national security threat. But labeling something a "non-international armed conflict" doesn't automatically grant unchecked power to strike at will.
A failed Senate procedural vote on November 6, 2025, shows the uphill climb to force this issue to the floor. Still, the push persists to ensure Congress isn't sidelined while boots and bombs are deployed.
Distinguishing Targets Under International Law
Calling someone a "narco-terrorist" doesn't make them a lawful target under international humanitarian law. Rules are clear: combatants can be struck, but civilians and those hors de combat, like shipwrecked survivors, must be protected.
Public reports of follow-on fire killing survivors of initial strikes raise serious red flags. If true, such actions would shred the bedrock principle of distinction that governs armed conflict.
The administration's rhetoric may sound tough, but legal status hinges on facts, not fiery labels. Congress is right to demand hard evidence before accepting any justification for lethal force.
Separation of Powers at Stake
Justice Jackson's framework from Youngstown reminds us that presidential power plummets when Congress explicitly opposes executive action. A War Powers vote like S.J.Res. 90 could shove the White House into that "lowest ebb" of authority.
The real issue isn't whether drug cartels are a menace, but whether the President can indefinitely wage lethal campaigns without legislative consent. Congress crafted the War Powers Resolution to prevent exactly this kind of overreach.
If lawmakers fail to act, they hand future presidents a blank check to redefine criminal threats as "hostilities" warranting military response. That’s a dangerous precedent for a nation founded on checks and balances.
Restoring Accountability to Military Action
A War Powers vote won't settle every factual dispute over these Venezuela-linked strikes, but it can clarify if Congress accepts the executive's legal theory. It forces a public reckoning on whether counter-narcotics operations equate to sustained hostilities requiring authorization.
Longer term, the fight is about preserving the rule of law over unilateral power grabs. If Congress wavers, it risks becoming a spectator to endless military ventures dressed up as national security necessities.
The War Powers Resolution was built to ensure the people's representatives have a say before blood is spilled in their name. S.J.Res. 90 tests whether Congress still has the spine to wield that authority, or if it'll let executive overreach become the new normal.
