Big News Alert

President Donald Trump has admitted a truly alarming fact: he informed oil companies about his plans to attack Venezuela and abduct its leader, Nicolás Maduro, before bothering to notify the U.S. Congress.

This admission came after the surprise bombardment of Venezuela, an action Democrats immediately condemned as an illegal declaration of war, executed without the required congressional approval. Trump, however, dismisses this criticism, claiming the operation to detain Maduro on "narco-terrorism" charges was merely a law enforcement effort.

Adding to the concern, Trump has openly declared his intention to "run" Venezuela and seize control of its oil industry. He explicitly stated American companies would be sent in to "fix the infrastructure" and revive what he called the "dead country," without the U.S. investing "anything" but rather "taking care of the country."

What Could Go Wrong

This blatant sidestepping of Congress sets a dangerous precedent for executive power. When a president greenlights military action and foreign intervention while briefing private corporations over the legislative branch, it fundamentally undermines our nation's system of checks and balances.

The White House's claim that this is a "law enforcement operation" feels like a convenient smokescreen. Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) articulated a widely held fear, stating this invasion is "all about making money for his friends," for "Wall Street, the oil industry."

"Once again, you’re seeing that this president’s foreign policy, the invasion of Venezuela, the ouster of Maduro, is about making his crowd filthy rich. It has nothing to do with American national security."

If our foreign policy is truly being shaped by the profit motives of private industry, rather than national security or democratic principles, then who truly benefits? The American taxpayer, who bears the cost of such military actions, certainly isn't the primary winner.

Who Must Answer

President Trump must provide a clear and unequivocal explanation for why the constitutional requirement of congressional approval for military action was so casually dismissed. He must clarify why oil executives were deemed more worthy of prior consultation than the elected representatives of the American people.

Furthermore, the administration needs to account for the stark contrast between its stated objective of countering "narco-terrorism" and the President's public pronouncements about "running" Venezuela and exploiting its oil resources for American companies. The apparent motivations demand transparent answers.

Your Call

Consider the implications: A president takes military action against a sovereign nation, bypasses Congress, and openly discusses seizing that nation's resources for private American corporations. Does this align with your vision of American values and democratic accountability?

Are you okay with this political decision or action?