President Donald Trump’s swift attack on Venezuela surprised the world – including Congressional leaders who said they weren’t informed ahead of time.
The strikes on Caracas have raised familiar questions about the U.S. president’s power to conduct military actions without authorization from Congress, even though the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war.
To put the attack in historical context, we caught up with USC Price School Provost Professor Jeffery Jenkins, a political historian and expert on Congress. His answers were lightly edited for length and clarity.
Does the president generally have legal authority to carry out attacks like the one against Venezuela?
The Constitution stipulates that the president is Commander in Chief. The way that has been interpreted has changed over time, with increasingly ambitious presidents pushing the envelope. This administration has framed this event as a “police action,” in which they are serving an arrest warrant (that had been in place since 2020 and updated over time) for a variety of crimes related to narco-terrorism, drug trafficking, and weapons charges.
Congressional leaders said they were not informed of the attack until after it started. Does this set a new precedent?
The Trump administration said quick action was required, and immediate decision making (based on a host of factors) made informing Congressional leaders difficult. In the aftermath of the action, Republican leaders supported it, while Democratic leaders expressed concerns. This is another case of how events are viewed through the prism of the hyper-polarization we live in today.
How have the president’s and Congress’s powers over wars and foreign conflicts changed over time?
The president has grown in power, while the Congress has weakened. That has been true since the founding of the nation, and it has grown considerably since the early part of the 20th century. There are many issues, but the key one is this: presidential action is unilateral, while congressional action is collective.
The president can move swiftly, while the Congress — a group of 535 individuals — requires time to confer, coordinate, and decide. In a world where quick action is often required, the president has a tremendous first-mover advantage.
Master of Public Policy
Advocate & Innovate for a More Just World
Effective public policy has the power to disentangle increasingly complex global and domestic challenges. With an MPP from USC, you will have that power too.
Find Out MoreAnd while the Constitution gives the Congress the power to declare war, it also makes the president the Commander in Chief. So there is a tension there. And over time, the notion of war-making has changed to include things like “military actions,” “police actions,” and so forth to give the president cover to make unilateral uses of force. Congress has not declared war since the Second World War — and we have been involved in plenty of “wars” since then.
Finally, I think it’s fair to say that, over time, the American people have grown accustomed to seeing these sorts of uses of force as within the normal domain of presidential authority. And the degree to which such uses of forces are viewed as “legitimate” depends on partisanship.
What could Congress do now, if anything, to oversee or even restrain the U.S. intervention in Venezuela?
Very little right now. But if the action requires serious U.S. investment — in boots on the ground and/or resources — Congress could always refuse to appropriate the funds. But with Republican majorities in both chambers of Congress, that seems unlikely. And, apart from that, members of Congress always fear being viewed as disloyal and unsupportive of the military, so if there is an escalation there will be lots of pressure to go along.
President Trump cited the Monroe Doctrine to argue for the U.S. to take a larger role in Latin America affairs. What is the Monroe Doctrine, and how would that differ from current U.S. foreign policy?
The Monroe Doctrine, established by President James Monroe in 1823, made clear to the European powers that the Western Hemisphere was the domain of the United States. And that the U.S. would actively oppose any European interference in its region of the world.
Trump’s statements indicate that he’s using the Monroe Doctrine as justification — or perhaps one justification — for the executive actions he is pursuing. After his move in Venezuela, he has also mentioned that other nations — like Cuba and Columbia — need to be careful and heed his commands. One might see the Monroe Doctrine as giving the president leverage in the Western Hemisphere, but it’s not clear that Trump wouldn’t be doing the same things in its absence.
How does the capture of Venezuela President Maduro compare to other U.S. foreign interventions? Are there similar examples from U.S. history?
The most recent comparisons have been U.S. operations in Grenada (under President Ronald Reagan in 1983) and Panama (under President H. W. Bush in 1989). The Panama case is similar in that a criminal dictator, Manuel Noriega, was brought to justice.
How could this attack affect the U.S. midterms? How have wars or foreign interventions affected midterms in the past?
It’s unlikely this will yield any benefit for the Republicans in the midterms. Foreign policy rarely moves the public-opinion needle. People are typically concerned about domestic politics and how things around them are affecting their lives. In 2026, issues like inflation, the costs of essentials, and general affordability will almost certainly matter more than what is happening in Venezuela. And Democrats are already trying to frame things in this way — arguing that Trump is flexing his muscles in Venezuela and is out of touch with what really matters for Americans.
