Delivering independent news and analysis that champions progressive values, empowers communities, and holds power accountable for a stronger democracy.
President Donald Trump’s recent White House meeting with oil executives revealed more than a plan for Venezuelan energy.
It exposed a doctrine that treats international law as optional, constrained only by his personal “morality.” Continue reading “Trump’s Petro-Presidency and the Death of Legal Restraint”
Trump’s Venezuela strike triggered an immediate constitutional crisis, beginning with his early morning Truth Social post declaring “we got him” and continuing through a chest-thumping Mar-a-Lago monologue that followed. The announcement did not read like a national security briefing. It read like a president auditioning for the role of Caesar with a cable-news highlight reel, except the Constitution was not a suggestion box and “details to follow” was not a legal theory. By Trump’s own account, the United States launched a large-scale military assault on Venezuela, captured its sitting president, and declared it would now “run the country.”
If Trump’s description was taken at face value—air, land, and sea attacks; disabled defenses; boots on the ground; a seized head of state; and plans for U.S. oil companies to “go in” and “start making money”—the operation was not a narrow, time-limited response to an imminent threat. It was unilateral war-making paired with regime change and occupation talk, announced like a luxury resort press event. Continue reading “Trump’s Venezuela Strike and the Constitutional Crisis of Unilateral War”
