If not for an entirely complicit House and Senate MAGA majorities, Donald Trump’s lawless, morally repugnant war of aggression to capture Venezuelan oil would not have been possible. Refusing to stop Trump through a War Powers resolution and/or cutting off funding for attacks on suspected drug-running boats and on Venezuelan territory, MAGA Republicans are entirely responsible for Trump’s international aggression.
However, unlike obsequious Republicans, House and Senate Democrats can make a move to thwart Trump’s absurd scheme to “run” Venezuela and to prevent him from attacking other countries (e.g., Colombia, Cuba, and Denmark). A smartly-designed strategy might also widen the cracks opening within the Republican camp and pave the way for Democrats’ midterm sweep, which could re-establish checks and balances.
First, Democrats need to speak out forcefully (as they did on Trump stripping millions of access to healthcare) against Trump and his Republican patsies’ reckless and lawless operation. Trump and his crew lied about the purpose of the boat attacks, which they swore was not about ousting Venezuela’s president. Trump’s power grab and colonial ambitions serve as a green light to other aggressors to kidnap adversaries’ leaders and take over territory (e.g. China grabbing Taiwan).
More important, however, Democrats must zero in on the open-ended military commitment that lacks even a pretense of advancing “democracy” or fighting narco-terrorism. Indeed, leaving the rest of the Maduro regime in place secures an authoritarian regime that, according to Trump, has engaged in narcotics smuggling.
To forge a bipartisan coalition, Democrats will need to explain why average people should care. Americans certainly should fear that Trump’s endless military attacks and occupation could endanger our own people and destabilize other South American countries (which might send more refugees north). Given the sorry status of Venezuela’s oil industry, the notion that it will pay for our invasion is as laughable as a similarly ridiculous claim about Iraq. If anything, this is an endless military commitment of our troops and taxpayer money on behalf of Big Oil.
Second, Trump delivered a wholly insufficient War Powers Report. Briefings have left both Republicans and Democrats baffled about what comes next. Democrats should insist Trump specify the legal justification, the number of casualties, which troops are engaged, the expected duration of their presence, and other critical information about how Trump intends to use force to control a puppet regime. Democrats should force Republicans to take the vote on whether they want to leave an armada off the coast and/or put boots on the ground to “run” Venezuela indefinitely, using taxpayer dollars.
However, Democrats would be wise to pursue a wider war powers resolution preventing military action against any country in the region Trump has identified (e.g., Colombia) and against all treaty allies who would force Republicans to answer hard questions: Are you for or against committing the U.S. to occupy and/or run companies to enrich oil companies? Are you for or against attacking allies and more endless wars? Democrats can hold the floor for a day or so to educate the American people and give them time to contact their lawmakers.
Democrats may find a receptive audience. A Washington Post poll showed a stunning 94% of Americans think Venezuelans — not the U.S. — should choose how to run their country. Only 33% approve of the strike and capture (i.e. kidnapping) of Nicolás Maduro, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released Monday. A whopping 72% worry that the U.S. is “becoming too involved in the South American country.”
Third, Democrats can use hearings strategically. They can expose the Trump crew’s utter lack of planning and consideration of the cost and risks of our ongoing military presence. How are they going to “run” the place, what if Venezuelans balk, and when could this end?
Democrats would also be wise to probe the record of now-president Delcy Rodríguez, who was part of the Maduro regime and “never denounced the brutal repression and corruption sustaining Mr. Maduro’s rule,” as the New York Times reported. Republicans decide if we should trade one corrupt, illegitimate leader for a more compliant one at the cost of committing to “run” a foreign country, by force or threat of force, for years to come.
Beyond that, Democrats could advance congressional proposals preventing U.S. oil companies from “taking” oil from Venezuela or any other countries (or taxing 100% of their gains). They can demand a vote to bar Trump from subsidizing the oil companies or spending anything to support a government not popularly elected by Venezuelans. Some Republicans may get nervous about a forever war that uses U.S. taxpayer dollars to enrich Trump’s Big Oil patrons.
Fourth, while impeachment/removal of Trump is fruitless even after the midterms (as the Supreme Court gave him broad immunity for criminal prosecution), Democrats should not overlook opportunities to hold Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and other senior officials accountable for lying to Congress (e.g., insisting Trump’s boat attacks/killing were not about regime change, promising to come to Congress before striking Venezuela). Democrats should not let these officials off the hook for murdering civilians, conducting a war of aggression, and violating an international treaty (i.e. the UN charter) that is “Supreme Law of the Land” under the Supremacy Clause. (U.N. representative Mike Waltz embarrassed himself and the U.S. by offering no legal justification for blatant violation of the U.N. charter.) With time, Republicans may sour on Hegseth specifically, making his removal possible. In any event, a future Democratic administration should pursue all criminal and civil avenues of accountability.
Moreover, Hegseth can be subject to military discipline under a new administration. (His baseless persecution of Sen. Mark Kelly’s for exercising 1st Amendment rights and in violation of the Speech or Debate Clause opens the possibility that Hegseth may face rank reduction or other military punishment down the road for very real offenses such as mishandling secret battle information and overseeing extrajudicial killings.) Rubio and Hegseth should also worry that foreign powers and international bodies might later pursue them for grotesque violations of international law.)
In sum, Democrats should make it as hard as possible for Republicans to endorse aggressive military adventures and colonial exploitation of other countries. This should be part and parcel of their midterm message that Republicans have lacked spine to stand up to Trump in defense of Americans’ interest. Republicans consistently enable Trump, who does not give a damn about Americans’ concerns (e.g., prices, healthcare), to pursue an agenda all about enriching himself, his cronies, and donors (e.g., Big Oil, crypto-scammers, Big Tech, billionaires) at the expense of everyone else.
The rot at the core of Trump’s presidency — putting his power and wealth first and America last — can be the unifying theme to galvanize Democratic voters, win over independents, and peel away Republican support. That may be the key to crushing Republicans in 2026 and 2028 and, thereby, restoring democracy and sanity to our political system.
Yes. But I think Democrats will get more traction also linking all this spending on aggression (how much is this all costing?) to the ineptness/venality of the GOP and Trumpstein in letting Americans go without healthcare, endure high cost of living etc all in the service of enriching billionaires and oil companies.
Same as they've ever been. Just no masks this time. Republicans have always been evil in my lifetime.