Congress
‘Iraq 2.0’: Democrats seethe at Trump’s surprise Venezuela strike
Democrats are furious over President Donald Trump’s overnight strike in Venezuela.
The president’s latest show of force on the world stage, which Trump says saw the U.S. military capture Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his wife, quickly united rank-and-file Democratic lawmakers behind one message: They say the White House illegally bypassed Congress and has no plan for the chaotic aftermath of war.
“Congress did not authorize this war,” Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.) wrote on X. “Venezuela posed no imminent threat to the United States. This is reckless, elective regime change risking American lives (Iraq 2.0) with no plan for the day after. Wars cost more than trophies.”
Trump announced the strike in an early morning post on Truth Social Saturday, touching off a wave of praise from ideologically aligned members of his party — and fierce criticism from Democrats.
Notably, the top Democratic congressional leaders were not among the first to react. Instead, rank-and-file lawmakers took the lead in sharing their anger over Trump’s decision to topple a foreign leader by military force without asking lawmakers for authorization first.
One of the few Democrats in a key leadership position to speak out quickly Saturday was Rep. Jim Himes of Connecticut, the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee. He said in a statement that the administration needed to “immediately brief Congress on its plan to ensure stability in the region and its legal justification for this decision.”
“Maduro is an illegitimate ruler,” Himes wrote. “But I have seen no evidence that his presidency poses a threat that would justify military action without Congressional authorization, nor have I heard a strategy for the day after and how we will prevent Venezuela from descending into chaos.”
Trump addressed the emerging Democratic criticism in a Fox News interview Saturday morning where he said “all they do is complain.”
“They should say, ‘Great job,'” he said. “They shouldn’t say, ‘Oh, gee, maybe it’s not constitutional.’ You know, the same old stuff that we’ve been hearing for years and years and years.”
Congress has not authorized military action against Venezuela, and lawmakers have been split for months on the legality of the Trump administration’s strikes against suspected drug smuggling vessels in the waters off Latin America and a potential move to oust Maduro. Republicans have fended off several Democratic-led efforts to require Trump to seek approval from Congress before attacking Venezuela.
Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah initially questioned the legal justification for the operation. But after a phone call with Secretary of State Marco Rubio to discuss the operation, the Utah senator said the move “likely falls within the president’s inherent authority under Article II of the Constitution to protect U.S. personnel from an actual or imminent attack.”
In addition to the murky legal justification, several Democrats said the move is an about-face for administration officials who they said argued regime change wasn’t the end goal of the administration’s aggressive military campaign in Latin America.
“Secretaries Rubio and [Pete] Hegseth looked every Senator in the eye a few weeks ago and said this wasn’t about regime change. I didn’t trust them then and we see now that they blatantly lied to Congress,” Sen. Andy Kim (D-N.J.) said on X. “Trump rejected our Constitutionally required approval process for armed conflict because the Administration knows the American people overwhelmingly reject risks pulling our nation into another war.”
Meanwhile, Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), a combat veteran who deployed to Iraq as an infantryman in 2005, wrote on X Saturday that “the American people did not ask for this.”
And he wondered aloud about what comes next for the South American country, asking on X, “so who is in charge of Venezuela now?”
A December Quinnipiac poll found that Americans overwhelmingly oppose military action against Venezuela, with just 25 percent of respondents saying they supported an intervention inside the country. Even the White House’s strategy of targeting boats with alleged drug traffickers proved broadly unpopular.
“I fought in some of the hardest battles of the Iraq War,” Gallego wrote. “Saw my brothers die, saw civilians being caught in the crossfire all for an unjustified war. No matter the outcome we are in the wrong for starting this war in Venezuela.”
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), who is a co-chair of the Congressional Venezuela Democracy Caucus and represents a significant population of Venezuelan immigrants in South Florida, signaled agreement with the move to oust Maduro. She called his capture “welcome news” for Venezuela but argued Trump should have involved Congress before conducting the attack.
“The absence of congressional involvement prior to this action risks the continuation of the illegitimate Venezuelan regime,” Wasserman Schultz said in a statement.
Other Democrats voiced stronger opposition to the administration’s military moves.
“Millions of Americans voted in the last Presidential election to end frivolous conflicts and unnecessary foreign wars,” said Rep. Gabe Vasquez (D-N.M), an Armed Services Committee member, in a statement. “This escalation of hostilities against Venezuela and the capture of a foreign leader without congressional authorization goes against the will of the Americans who put the president in power.”
Measures to rein in Trump on Venezuela prior to the attack narrowly failed in the House and in the Senate for lack of GOP support, but could soon resurface. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) have promised to force another vote on their measure to restrict Trump, which could occur when Congress returns next week.
Congress
Lawmakers seek to limit DHS power to shuffle cash in funding bill
Top appropriators on Capitol Hill are seeking to tighten limits around how much money DHS can shift between accounts as they finalize funding bills ahead of the Jan. 30 shutdown deadline.
Rep. Mark Amodei, the Nevada Republican who chairs the DHS funding panel, told reporters Tuesday night that House and Senate appropriators are crafting their spending measure to make it “harder to make the money mobile.” The effort comes as the Trump administration has spent the past year testing the limits of its power to disregard congressional intent and reprogram billions of dollars between accounts.
“We did a bunch of reprogramming,” Amodei said of Republicans in the White House. “It’s like, hey, that’s bullshit.”
To limit the Trump administration’s ability to shift cash, appropriators plan to include tables within the bill that show exactly which accounts should be funded and lower the percentages of cash that can be used for other purposes, Amodei continued.
Appropriators have briefed President Donald Trump’s budget office on the funding bill they hope to pass and have taken OMB’s input into account, Amodei said. Still, he acknowledged that some Trump administration officials, including Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, will not be fond of new restrictions on moving around cash.
“Now I know that the secretary doesn’t like that,” Amodei said. “And it’s like, well, we’ve all got our unlike departments. And so welcome to the club.”
He also divulged that the funding bill will provide enough cash for DHS to keep 44,500 immigrants in detention facilities at any given time. Appropriators will be tracking detention capacity every month and expect the Trump administration to fill that “detention bed” capacity, he added.
“They better, by God, be full,” said Amodei.
Amodei is in the midst of final negotiations with senior Senate appropriators on the DHS funding bill. “We’re real close,” he said. “We want to be able to publish the bill this week.”
Congress
GOP-led Jan. 6 committee sets first hearing for next week
The new Republican-led panel tasked with investigating the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol attack will hold its first hearing next week, Rep. Barry Loudermilk said in an interview Tuesday — the five-year anniversary of the event.
The Georgia Republican, who is the chair of the select subcommittee, said his panel was still ironing out its list of witnesses, but he anticipated the focus would be the pipe bombs left at the Democratic and Republican National Committee headquarters the day before the riots at the Capitol.
“It’s gonna be sometime next week,” Loudermilk said. “We’re gonna be really looking at the pipe bomb and the FBI’s investigation — previous investigation. Why did it take five years?”
News of the hearing that would look at the events of that day through the lens of security failures rather than attempts by President Donald Trump and his supporters to overturn the results of the 2020 election was the culmination of a daylong campaign from Republicans to offer an alternative memory of the Capitol attack.
The White House published a website offering a largely false narrative of what unfolded at the Capitol five years ago — one that blamed then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi and forcefully denied Trump’s role in inciting the violence. Democrats and Republicans also fought over the fate of a commemorative plaque mandated by Congress to honor those who protected the Capitol on Jan. 6, with Speaker Mike Johnson maintaining the project was untenable.
Loudermilk said he had not spoken to Johnson about the memorial tablet and hasn’t been following the controversy around it but suggested he wasn’t opposed to its display — something of a break with House GOP leadership have sought to either bury the matter or denigrate the effort.
“I don’t have problem putting it up. I think you need to honor the police,” he said. “I mean, the rank and file police, they were just trying to do their job.”
Congress
Johnson: U.S. military action in Greenland ‘would not be appropriate’
Speaker Mike Johnson Tuesday evening swatted down the idea of any U.S. military action to take over Greenland, just after the White House said President Donald Trump wanted to acquire the territory and would not take military action off the table.
“No, I don’t think that’s appropriate,” Johnson told reporters Tuesday evening.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement Tuesday that “utilizing the U.S. Military is always an option at the Commander in Chief’s disposal.”
The speaker, who said he hadn’t seen the statement, appeared to not believe the White House would make such a comment. Johnson did say he believed “Greenland is viewed by a lot of people as something that would be a strategic positioning for the U.S.”
Johnson said the issue didn’t come up in conversations with Trump earlier Tuesday at the House GOP retreat.
-
The Dictatorship11 months agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
Politics11 months agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
Politics11 months agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
The Dictatorship4 months agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words
-
Politics11 months agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
The Dictatorship11 months agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
Uncategorized1 year ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
Politics9 months agoDemocrat challenging Joni Ernst: I want to ‘tear down’ party, ‘build it back up’
