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.
A golden tray sits on the Resolute Desk as President Donald Trump speaks during an announcement on American nuclear innovation in the Oval Office at the White House on July 24, 2026, in Washington, D.C. Trump is signing multiple executive orders targeting the nuclear energy sector and easing rules for new reactors and nuclear fuel supply chains.
Trump’s hubris rivals the fallen heroes of ancient Greek mythology
In January, the New York Times asked President Donald Trump if there were any limits on his global powers.
“Yeah,” the president responded, “there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”
That was eight months ago, but fortunately Christopher Nolan’s blockbuster adaptation of “The Odyssey” has made ancient Greek literature newly relevant. Before that window closes, I’d like to talk about hubris.
Today, the term mostly means excessive pride or arrogance. That’s part of what the Greeks meant by it too, but the meaning was a bit richer and more specific. Hubris was an insolent or outrageous act that offended the gods, often because the transgressor was claiming abilities or authorities that solely belonged to supreme beings.
Nolan renamed and slightly modified the concept of xenia for the film, calling it “Zeus’ law.” In the director’s telling, mortals should follow the rules laid out by the gods, specifically the requirement to treat strangers with respect lest they be gods in disguise.
In a sense, hubris is the opposite, or at least the rejection, of xenia. The hubris of the suitors, and at times Odysseus himself, invites punishment by the gods and their mortal instruments.
Which brings me back to Donald Trump. His claim that there are no constraints on his personal power to dictate events on the global stage was one of the greatest expressions of hubris ever uttered by a political leader.
Trump’s claim was obviously false when he made it.
He vowed that he could end the Russia-Ukraine war in 24 hours. He’s proved powerless to make that happen. If he had divine powers to work his will, why would he have balked at implementing his tariffs so often that Wall Street adopted the “TACO trade” term for his deals? “TACO” stands for “Trump always chickens out.”
And why would Trump have made so many embarrassing concessions to China — from rescinding tariffs on Chinese goods to allowing them to buy crucial and incredibly valuable computer chips?
But Trump saw his success at capturing Venezuelan strongman Nicolas Maduro as proof of his ability to launch missiles to the same effect as Zeus’ lightning bolts. Trump believed he was the most powerful man who ever lived.
This is no exaggeration. In March, when the Iran invasion seemed successful, Trump gave a document penned by“Presidential Historian David King” to New York Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan purporting to prove that Trump was “the most powerful person to have EVER walked this planet.” King was, in fact, a businessman and occasional caddy for legendary golfer Gary Player.
King compared Trump favorably to many of history’s most powerful, and often heinous, figures: Alexander the Great, Attila the Hun, William the Conqueror, Napoleon Bonaparte, Joseph Stalin, Genghis Khan, Mao Tse Tung, Adolf Hitler and Vladimir Lenin. Many of these men thought they were the most powerful person in the world, too. And many were defeated precisely because they believed it.
At least Napoleon and Hitler had a string of truly impressive victories before they learned the folly of hubris. The limits on Trump’s power have been exposed by far less august forces than the combined might of the allies in World War II or the fearsome Russian winter.
Iran is a comparatively middling power. But the regime’s ability to absorb punishment while imposing its will on the Strait of Hormuz has proved to be a greater constraint on Trump’s power than his morality or mind. We should note that, at least rhetorically, his morality has not proved much of a constraint. He has repeatedly promised to destroy Iranian “civilization” if the regime refuses to capitulate.
But they haven’t — and won’t anytime soon — because the regime’s tolerance for pain far outstrips Trump’s. The combined fear of skyrocketing oil prices, outrage of Gulf state potentates, diminishing weapon supplies and domestic unpopularity is doing the work that international law, congressional oversight and the collective opinion of foreign policy experts can’t or won’t do.
If I considered Trump more heroic than reason and facts could allow, I would say his Sisyphean predicament has the whiff of Greek tragedy to it. Trump is vexed by the fact that the Iranians won’t honor deals or ratify his countless premature claims of victory — giving new meaning to his vow that his presidency would make people tired of winning. It’s almost like they’re out-Trumping Trump.
Things might have gone better if he’d heeded that great Greek tragedian Sophocles: “For Zeus utterly abhors the boasts of a proud tongue.”
____
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.