From Vietnam to Iraq to Venezuela, the United States has a long history of intervening in other countries’ affairs without a formal declaration of war.
President Donald Trump has failed to follow proper protocol to take such a step, which includes going before the United Nations and seeking full approval from Congress. He has followed in the footsteps of his predecessors going back many generations.
President Harry Truman bypassed Congress when North Korea invaded South Korea in 1950 and instead sought approval from the U.N. Security Council to intervene in the conflict. Approval was granted in part because Chinese and Soviet officials were absent from the meeting. China had not yet been given a seat on the Security Council, and the Soviet Union was boycotting the meeting because of China’s exclusion, according to the Declare War Clause.
That action led to the conflict in Korea escalating further when U.S. Gen. Douglas MacArthur asked for and was given permission to send troops into North Korea, prompting intervention from Chinese soldiers. The conflict was not settled until 1953.
Similarly, while President Lyndon Johnson went before Congress during the Vietnam War to pass the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution after the 1964 incident in the Gulf of Tonkin, the resolution did not grant permission for the eventual deployment of troops in South Vietnam or the deaths of more than 58,000 American soldiers, according to U.S. National Archives records.
Under the War Powers Act of 1973, Congress mandated that a president must consult with Congress whenever possible before taking military action, report to Congress within 48 hours of taking action, withdraw troops within 60 days of deployment, and seek congressional authorization for any extended deployment.
However, President George H.W. Bush did not seek approval when he sent troops into Panama in 1989 to arrest Manuel Noriega on drug trafficking charges, arguing the mission did not meet the criteria of war. Bush did seek congressional approval when he launched Operation Desert Storm during the first Gulf War.
It is important to remember that tensions between the United States and Venezuela long predate Trump’s presidency. Hugo Chávez, who led Venezuela from 1999 to 2013, frequently accused the United States of meddling in the affairs of Latin American countries, including Venezuela. Chávez provided oil to countries such as Russia, Cuba and Iran to strengthen diplomatic relations.
Living conditions in Venezuela worsened further when Nicolás Maduro, who was recently taken into U.S. custody with his wife, Cilia Flores, to face drug trafficking charges, took office. The country faced a collapsing economy, hyperinflation and mass emigration.
Venezuela celebrated the success of the military action, as many citizens believe they are better off now that Maduro is no longer in power.
However, while the U.S. operation in Venezuela successfully removed Maduro from office, it did not alter the structure of the government in the way the 2003 invasion of Iraq did. In Iraq, the U.S.-led operation overthrew Saddam Hussein and oversaw a transition to a new government. In Venezuela, no such transition has occurred, and Maduro’s vice president, Delcy Rodriguez, has assumed control.
Trump’s allies will argue he cared enough to end Maduro’s rule over the Venezuelan people, but critics say the operation was conducted improperly and claim access to Venezuela’s vast oil reserves was a significant motivating factor for the administration.
Beyond Venezuela, the operation also sends a message internationally. It may signal to U.S. adversaries such as China and Russia that the United States is willing to act swiftly and decisively when it believes its interests are threatened.
Conversely, it may also suggest that power and strength take precedence over law. This concern is heightened as Russian President Vladimir Putin continues military operations in Ukraine and Chinese President Xi Jinping has expressed interest in Taiwan. Both leaders have closely monitored how the operation unfolded.
Ultimately, the U.S. operation in Venezuela is another example of military action taken by a sitting president without congressional consultation, echoing decisions from Korea to Vietnam to Panama and beyond. While Maduro’s removal may be welcomed by many Venezuelans, the manner in which it occurred has raised serious questions about congressional authority and international law.
At a time when global tensions are already high and leaders in Moscow and Beijing are closely watching American actions, how the United States exercises its power matters as much as the outcome. The operation in Venezuela is not merely an isolated event but the latest chapter in the ongoing debate over who has the authority to decide when and how the United States intervenes in foreign conflicts.
