Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

President’s Use of Force in the Caribbean Is Another Test for Congress and the Constitutional System

Opinion

President’s Use of Force in the Caribbean Is Another Test for Congress and the Constitutional System

U.S. President Donald Trump in the Cabinet Room of the White House on December 02, 2025 in Washington, DC. A bipartisan Congressional investigation has begun about Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's role in ordering U.S. military strikes on small boats that have killed scores of people in the waters off Venezuela, which Hegseth said are intended "to stop lethal drugs, destroy narco-boats and kill the narco-terrorists who are poisoning the American people.”

(Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Since president Trump returned to office, Congress has seemed either irrelevant or impotent. Republican majorities in the Senate and the House have acquiesced in the president’s desire to radically expand executive power.

Examples are legion. The Congress sat idly by while the administration dismantled agencies that the Congress created. It sat idly by while the administration refused to spend money it had appropriated. Congress didn’t do a thing when the president ignored laws it passed.


Congress now faces a test of whether it can and will assert itself against a rogue president. It concerns the possible war crime committed on September 2 when the military fired on defenseless people who had survived a first strike on a boat allegedly carrying drugs toward the United States.

If the Congress turns a blind eye to what has unfolded in the Caribbean it will further its complicity in the dismantling of the rule of law in this country. If it is unmoved by the possibility that the American military may have violated the laws of war and simple human decency it will send a chilling message that will further weaken America’s standing in the world.

Republicans must join with Democrats in investigating the September 2 incident and examining the larger context of the Trump Administration's belligerency in the Caribbean.

As the Council on Foreign Relations notes, the administration has assembled an armada of the coast of Venezuela. It includes “the USS Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier, destroyers, cruisers, amphibious assault ships, and a special forces support ship. A variety of aircraft have also been active in the region, including bombers, fighters, drones, patrol planes, and support aircraft.”

Almost ten thousand troops and six thousand sailors “have been deployed on U.S. ships active in the region.” The financial cost of this deployment is enormous and the diversion of resources to an unnecessary escapade is not in our country’s best interest.

The Trump Administration insisted that the show of force is necessary to keep safe from the threat of narco terrorism. But Venezuela is not the source of fentanyl or other deadly drugs.

On December 10, things escalated when the Coast Guard seized a Venezuelan oil tanker on the high seas.

That suggests that Trump’s Venezuelan fixation has more to do with the administration’s new big piers/spheres of influence approach to foreign policy than with America’s drug problem. In fact, the administration’s recently released National Security Strategy ranks the exercise of power in the Western Hemisphere as its number one priority.

But as the Council of Foreign Relations observes, “the end goal of the military deployments remains unclear. Experts have speculated that the wide array of military assets could be part of a broader plan to take direct action against the Venezuelan government, or it could be a show of force designed to pressure Maduro into stepping down without a fight.”

Congress has said nothing as we move toward war with Venezuela.

Meantime, the attacks on the boats in the Caribbean continue and lives continue to be taken. At least eighty seven people have died in almost two dozen attacks.

None had a trial. None were found guilty of drug trafficking.

As an article in Rolling Stone observes, “The administration is claiming without much evidence that they are only targeting ‘narco terrorists,’ a flimsy justification for the strikes that many believe are illegal regardless of who was on board the boats.”

In the September 2 attack, nine people were killed in the first strike. Two survived and were seen clinging to the wreckage of their boat.

The laws of war forbid killing survivors. But that didn’t prevent Trump’s military from launching a second strike that killed them.

When the video of the incident was shown in a secret session to senior leaders of the intelligence and foreign affairs committee of the House and Senate, members of the two political parties seemed to have seen different things. Democratic Congressman Jim Himes said that what he saw was “one of most disturbing things” he has ever seen.

On the other hand, Republican Senator Tom Cotton said what the video showed was “lawful and needful.”

There once was a time when such partisan divisions were muted when it came to matters of foreign policy. “Republican senator Arthur Vandenberg exemplified the bipartisan ethos of this era,” the political scientist Jeffrey Friedman observes, “declaring that ‘politics ends at the waters edge’ and shepherding Democratic President Harry Truman’s foreign policy agenda through Congress.”

Such bipartisanship enabled Congress to play a significant role in checking executive power. But no more.

It is time to revive it. Otherwise it is hard to imagine Congress pressing for the release of the September 2 video to the public and playing its constitutionally prescribed role in the unfolding military adventure in the Caribbean.

On December 3, President Trump seemed to agree that the video should be released. Responding to a question about the September 2 incident he said, “I don't know what they have, but whatever they have, we’d certainly release no problem."

Five days later, he changed his time and denied that he had said any such thing.

Pete Hegseth, the Secretary of Defense, has been doing the kind of bobbing and weaving about whether he will release the video that would have made the great boxer, Muhammad Ali, proud.

A few Senate Republicans have suggested that the video should be released, but they have not done much more than issue statements.

Some, however, think that what is happening in the Caribbean and what happened on September 2 “has awakened the Republican-controlled Congress to its oversight role after months of frustration about the trickle of information from the Pentagon.”

Other evidence of that awakening is found in “the annual defense authorization bill which was crafted by both Republicans and Democrats, Congress is demanding that the Pentagon turn over unedited video of the strikes, as well as the orders authorizing the attacks. The legislation threatens to withhold a quarter of Hegseth's travel budget if he refuses.”

This is all to the good, but we have seen such predictions before, only to be extinguished when Republicans in Congress lose their nerve after the president pushes back. Whether he will do so in this case is not clear.

Whatever Trump does, the Congress needs to assert itself quickly, lest incidents like what happened on September 2 proliferate and the United States finds itself in a war with Venezuela.

Austin Sarat is the William Nelson Cromwell professor of jurisprudence and political science at Amherst College.

Read More

How do you solve a problem like Candace Owens?

Candace Owens speaks during the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) at The Rosen Shingle Creek on Feb. 25, 2022, in Orlando, Fla.

(Joe Raedle/Getty Images/Tribune Content Agency)

How do you solve a problem like Candace Owens?

Candace Owens has a very popular internet show in which she trots out deranged conspiracies about, among other things, the demonic nature of Jews, the murder of conservative activist Charlie Kirk (probably by Jews and their pawns, in her estimation) and the allegation that French President Emmanuel Macron’s wife is really a man.

Owens is hardly alone. There’s an entire ecosystem of right-wing “influencers” who peddle conspiracy theories brimming with racism, antisemitism, demonology, pseudoscience and general crackpottery in regular installments. There’s an even larger constellation of media outlets and personalities who feed on controversy without ever quite condemning the outrages that cause it.

Keep ReadingShow less
After the Ceasefire, the Violence Continues – and Cries for New Words

An Israeli army vehicle moves on the Israeli side, near the border with the Gaza Strip on November 18, 2025 in Southern Israel, Israel.

(Photo by Amir Levy/Getty Images)

After the Ceasefire, the Violence Continues – and Cries for New Words

Since October 10, 2025, the day when the US-brokered ceasefire between Israel and Hamas was announced, Israel has killed at least 401 civilians, including at least 148 children. This has led Palestinian scholar Saree Makdisi to decry a “continuing genocide, albeit one that has shifted gears and has—for now—moved into the slow lane. Rather than hundreds at a time, it is killing by twos and threes” or by twenties and thirties as on November 19 and November 23 – “an obscenity that has coalesced into a new normal.” The Guardian columnist Nesrine Malik describes the post-ceasefire period as nothing more than a “reducefire,” quoting the warning issued by Amnesty International’s secretary general Agnès Callamard that the ”world must not be fooled” into believing that Israel’s genocide is over.

A visual analysis of satellite images conducted by the BBC has established that since the declared ceasefire, “the destruction of buildings in Gaza by the Israeli military has been continuing on a huge scale,” entire neighborhoods “levelled” through “demolitions,” including large swaths of farmland and orchards. The Guardian reported already in March of 2024, that satellite imagery proved the “destruction of about 38-48% of tree cover and farmland” and 23% of Gaza’s greenhouses “completely destroyed.” Writing about the “colossal violence” Israel has wrought on Gaza, Palestinian legal scholar Rabea Eghbariah lists “several variations” on the term “genocide” which researchers found the need to introduce, such as “urbicide” (the systematic destruction of cities), “domicide” (systematic destruction of housing), “sociocide,” “politicide,” and “memoricide.” Others have added the concepts “ecocide,” “scholasticide” (the systematic destruction of Gaza’s schools, universities, libraries), and “medicide” (the deliberate attacks on all aspects of Gaza’s healthcare with the intent to “wipe out” all medical care). It is only the combination of all these “-cides,” all amounting to massive war crimes, that adequately manages to describe the Palestinian condition. Constantine Zurayk introduced the term “Nakba” (“catastrophe” in Arabic) in 1948 to name the unparalleled “magnitude and ramifications of the Zionist conquest of Palestine” and its historical “rupture.” When Eghbariah argues for “Nakba” as a “new legal concept,” he underlines, however, that to understand its magnitude, one needs to go back to the 1917 Balfour Declaration, in which the British colonial power promised “a national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine, even though just 6 % of its population were Jewish. From Nakba as the “constitutive violence of 1948,” we need today to conceptualize “Nakba as a structure,” an “overarching frame.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Ukraine, Russia, and the Dangerous Metaphor of Holding the Cards
a hand holding a deck of cards in front of a christmas tree
Photo by Luca Volpe on Unsplash

Ukraine, Russia, and the Dangerous Metaphor of Holding the Cards

Donald Trump has repeatedly used the phrase “holding the cards” during his tenure as President to signal that he, or sometimes an opponent, has the upper hand. The metaphor projects bravado, leverage, and the inevitability of success or failure, depending on who claims control.

Unfortunately, Trump’s repeated invocation of “holding the cards” embodies a worldview where leverage, bluff, and dominance matter more than duty, morality, or responsibility. In contrast, leadership grounded in duty emphasizes ethical obligations to allies, citizens, and democratic principles—elements strikingly absent from this metaphor.

Keep ReadingShow less
Beyond Apologies: Corporate Contempt and the Call for Real Accountability
campbells chicken noodle soup can

Beyond Apologies: Corporate Contempt and the Call for Real Accountability

Most customers carry a particular image of Campbell's Soup: the red-and-white label stacked on a pantry shelf, a touch of nostalgia, and the promise of a dependable bargain. It's food for snow days, tight budgets, and the middle of the week. For generations, the brand has positioned itself as a companion to working families, offering "good food" for everyday people. The company cultivated that trust so thoroughly that it became almost cliché.

Campbell's episode, now the subject of national headlines and an ongoing high-profile legal complaint, is troubling not only for its blunt language but for what it reveals about the hidden injuries that erode the social contract linking institutions to citizens, workers to workplaces, and brands to buyers. If the response ends with the usual PR maneuvers—rapid firings and the well-rehearsed "this does not reflect our values" statement. Then both the lesson and the opportunity for genuine reform by a company or individual are lost. To grasp what this controversy means for the broader corporate landscape, we first have to examine how leadership reveals its actual beliefs.

Keep ReadingShow less