Rep. Ilhan Omar Demands Congress Vote to Block Trump’s Venezuela Airstrikes as Unconstitutional, Illegal Actions Mount

On January 3, 2026, President Donald Trump authorized Operation Absolute Resolve, a military operation aimed at neutralizing Venezuelan defenses and capturing the country’s leader, Nicolás Maduro, along with his wife, Cilia Flores. This decisive action was framed by Trump as a necessary step to restore order in Venezuela, asserting that the U.S. would temporarily administer the country to facilitate a transition away from socialism and toward democracy. While the operation was celebrated by some as a tactical triumph, it has also drawn significant criticism, particularly from members of Congress like Representative Ilhan Omar, who labeled the strikes as illegal and unconstitutional. This essay will explore the context, implications, and controversies surrounding Operation Absolute Resolve, examining the legal, ethical, and political dimensions of U.S. military intervention in Venezuela.

Background: Venezuela’s Political Crisis

The Rise of Nicolás Maduro

Nicolás Maduro has been a controversial figure in Venezuelan politics, succeeding Hugo Chávez as president in 2013. His tenure has been marked by economic collapse, hyperinflation, and widespread human rights abuses. The Venezuelan economy, once one of the wealthiest in Latin America due to its vast oil reserves, has deteriorated under Maduro’s leadership. The government’s mismanagement of resources, coupled with falling oil prices, has led to severe shortages of food, medicine, and basic necessities.

Maduro’s regime has faced increasing domestic opposition, with many Venezuelans taking to the streets to protest against the government’s authoritarian practices. The situation escalated in early 2019 when Juan Guaidó, the head of the National Assembly, declared himself interim president, gaining recognition from several countries, including the United States. However, despite international support, Guaidó’s efforts to oust Maduro have not succeeded, and the regime has remained entrenched.

U.S. Involvement in Venezuela

The United States has a long history of involvement in Latin America, often characterized by a mix of support for democratic movements and military interventions. In the case of Venezuela, U.S. policy has been largely focused on opposing Maduro’s regime and supporting efforts to restore democracy. Economic sanctions have been imposed on key members of Maduro’s government, aimed at crippling their ability to govern effectively.

The Trump administration has taken a particularly aggressive stance toward Venezuela, viewing Maduro’s government as a threat to regional stability and U.S. interests. This perspective has been shaped by concerns over drug trafficking, human rights violations, and the potential for mass migration from Venezuela into neighboring countries.

Operation Absolute Resolve: The Military Action

The Execution of the Operation

Operation Absolute Resolve was executed with a level of precision that has been lauded by various media outlets, including The Washington Post. Over 150 U.S. aircraft were deployed to dominate the skies above Venezuela, allowing Delta Force to carry out the operation with minimal risk to U.S. personnel. The operation’s success was framed as a significant military achievement, showcasing the capabilities of U.S. forces in executing complex missions.

Trump’s announcement following the operation emphasized the U.S. commitment to restoring order in Venezuela and leveraging the country’s oil resources to aid recovery efforts. He positioned the operation as part of a broader strategy to eliminate threats posed by Maduro’s regime and facilitate a transition to democracy.

The Immediate Aftermath

The immediate aftermath of Operation Absolute Resolve saw celebrations among Venezuelan exiles in the United States, who viewed the operation as a long-awaited liberation from tyranny. Supporters of the operation, including Republican lawmakers like Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar, praised the swift action as a necessary step toward promoting democracy in Venezuela.

However, the operation’s execution has also raised significant questions regarding its legality and the implications for U.S. foreign policy. Critics, including Rep. Ilhan Omar, have argued that the airstrikes constitute a violation of international law and an overreach of presidential authority.

Legal and Constitutional Implications

The War Powers Resolution

One of the central legal arguments against Operation Absolute Resolve revolves around the War Powers Resolution of 1973. This legislation was enacted to ensure that Congress retains the authority to declare war and to limit the president’s ability to engage in military actions without congressional approval. Critics argue that Trump’s unilateral decision to launch airstrikes in Venezuela bypasses the constitutional requirement for congressional authorization.

Rep. Ilhan Omar’s demand for Congress to vote against the airstrikes reflects a broader concern about the erosion of legislative oversight in matters of war. By acting without congressional approval, Trump has set a precedent that could undermine the checks and balances established by the U.S. Constitution.

International Law and Sovereignty

In addition to domestic legal concerns, the operation raises questions about international law and the principles of state sovereignty. The use of military force against another country without a clear mandate from the United Nations or a legitimate justification based on self-defense is often viewed as a violation of international norms.

Critics contend that the airstrikes in Venezuela, framed as a humanitarian intervention, lack a legitimate basis under international law. The principle of sovereignty dictates that nations should not interfere in the internal affairs of others, and military action should be a last resort. The Trump administration’s justification for Operation Absolute Resolve—claiming to protect U.S. interests and promote democracy—may not satisfy the legal requirements for intervention under international law.

Political Reactions and Divisions

Bipartisan Support and Opposition

Operation Absolute Resolve has elicited mixed reactions from lawmakers and political commentators. While many Republicans have rallied behind Trump’s decision, viewing it as a bold move to confront a tyrannical regime, Democrats have expressed alarm over the implications of unilateral military action.

Supporters of the operation argue that it demonstrates American resolve in the face of tyranny and sends a strong message to other authoritarian regimes. They contend that the U.S. has a moral obligation to intervene when human rights abuses are occurring, particularly in cases where democratic movements are being suppressed.

Conversely, critics argue that the operation represents an overreach of executive power and risks entangling the U.S. in another protracted conflict. The historical context of U.S. interventions in Latin America, often resulting in unintended consequences, adds weight to these concerns.

The Role of Public Opinion

Public opinion plays a significant role in shaping the political landscape surrounding military interventions. While initial support for Operation Absolute Resolve may be high among certain demographics, sustained public backing will depend on the operation’s outcomes and the perception of its legality.

Polling data indicates that American attitudes toward military intervention have shifted over the years, with increasing skepticism regarding the effectiveness and morality of such actions. As the situation in Venezuela evolves, public sentiment may influence lawmakers’ willingness to support or oppose further military actions.

The Broader Implications for U.S. Foreign Policy

The Shift Toward Interventionism

Operation Absolute Resolve marks a continuation of a trend toward interventionism in U.S. foreign policy, particularly under the Trump administration. The willingness to engage in military action without congressional approval raises important questions about the future of U.S. foreign policy and the role of military force in achieving national objectives.

As the U.S. grapples with complex global challenges, including rising authoritarianism and humanitarian crises, the decision to intervene militarily will likely remain a contentious issue. The balance between promoting democracy and respecting national sovereignty will continue to shape debates over U.S. foreign policy.

The Impact on U.S.-Latin America Relations

The operation’s implications extend beyond Venezuela, potentially impacting U.S. relations with other countries in Latin America. The perception of U.S. interventionism may lead to increased tensions with governments that view such actions as imperialistic.

Moreover, the response from Latin American countries to the U.S. actions in Venezuela could influence regional dynamics and alliances. Countries that support Maduro’s regime may seek to strengthen ties with other nations opposed to U.S. influence, further complicating the geopolitical landscape in the region.

Conclusion

Operation Absolute Resolve represents a significant moment in U.S. foreign policy, raising complex questions about legality, ethics, and the role of military intervention. While the operation has garnered support from some quarters as a necessary step toward restoring democracy in Venezuela, it has also drawn sharp criticism for its potential violation of constitutional and international norms.

As the situation in Venezuela continues to unfold, the implications of U.S. military action will resonate far beyond its borders. The ongoing debates over the legality of such interventions, the erosion of congressional authority, and the challenges of promoting democracy in authoritarian regimes will shape the future of U.S. foreign policy.

Ultimately, the tensions surrounding Operation Absolute Resolve underscore the need for a thoughtful and nuanced approach to international relations, one that balances the imperative of protecting human rights with the principles of sovereignty and legal accountability. As the nation reflects on the lessons learned from this operation, the importance of accountability and oversight in matters of war remains paramount in preserving the integrity of American democracy.