Statement by Rep. Mike Levin on U.S. Military Action in Venezuela

January 3, 2026

There is no question that Nicolas Maduro ruled Venezuela through repression, corruption, and the systematic dismantling of democratic institutions. Millions of Venezuelans have paid the price, and their country is better off without him. But even when confronting a dictator, the United States remains bound by its own Constitution.

I am grateful to the members of our military and intelligence community who carried out their duties with professionalism and courage, and I am relieved that no American service members were killed. My respect and gratitude for their service, however, does not change the fact that the President moved forward without coming to Congress to explain the legal basis for this action, define its objectives, or seek the authorization the Constitution requires. Decisions of war and peace do not belong to one person alone.

The President has now stated that the United States is “running Venezuela.” Under the Constitution and international law, governing a foreign country constitutes an act of war and occupation, not a law-enforcement action. Such an undertaking requires explicit congressional authorization and a clear legal framework. Neither exists here.

To date, the Administration has not articulated a lawful basis for this operation. Article I of the Constitution assigns Congress the authority to authorize war and sustained military hostilities. Outside of a sudden or imminent attack on the United States or U.S. forces, the President does not have unilateral authority to launch major military operations or assume control over another country.

These concerns are heightened by the fact that senior Administration officials, including Marco Rubio and Pete Hegseth, briefed Members of Congress just weeks ago and did not request authorization for the use of force or disclose plans for regime change. Congress was sidelined from a decision of historic consequence, and the American people were denied transparency.

The Administration has attempted to frame this action as a law-enforcement or counternarcotics effort. That explanation is difficult to reconcile with the President’s recent pardon of a former Honduran president convicted in U.S. court of major drug trafficking offenses. It is further undermined by the President’s own statements emphasizing Venezuela’s oil and the desire to control it.

Securing access to another nation’s oil is not a lawful basis for the use of military force under the Constitution, nor is it recognized as a justification under international law. When military action is openly tied to control over natural resources, it reinforces the conclusion that this was a regime-change operation, not a limited enforcement action.

American history is clear: interventions undertaken without congressional authorization do not produce stability or security. They lead to prolonged conflict, regional instability, and lasting damage to U.S. credibility. Bypassing Congress does not make America stronger. It makes our power less legitimate and our outcomes more dangerous.

###