Supreme Court Shock Ruling Throws Trump’s Venezuela War Into Legal Chaos

Donald Trump’s sudden military action in Venezuela has plunged Washington into a full-blown constitutional crisis after a last-second Supreme Court decision reportedly declared the operation illegal. The ruling intensified outrage on Capitol Hill, where lawmakers from both parties accused Trump of openly defying Congress, the Constitution, and international law in what critics are calling an unauthorized regime change war.

In less than 24 hours, Trump moved from ordering strikes and the capture of Venezuela’s leader to publicly declaring that the United States would “run Venezuela.” Lawmakers argue this move directly contradicts everything Trump once campaigned on, including his 2016 promise to oppose regime change wars and costly nation-building abroad. Many voters now see the Venezuela operation as a betrayal of the “America First” platform.

The backlash has not been limited to Democrats. Even some Republicans and MAGA-aligned figures expressed alarm after Trump doubled down at a press conference, signaling that the operation was not a limited strike but an open-ended intervention. Lawmakers warned that Trump offered no plan, no cost estimate, and no clear exit strategy, reviving painful memories of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Adding fuel to the controversy, Trump openly discussed oil when explaining the motivation behind the action, reinforcing accusations that the war was driven by resource control rather than national security. Critics argue this framing strips the United States of moral credibility and reinforces global skepticism, particularly among European allies already questioning the legality of the operation.

Senator Tim Kaine quickly announced plans to force a bipartisan War Powers vote to block further military action. Lawmakers emphasized that Congress was deliberately bypassed, noting that the administration waited until lawmakers were on break before launching the operation. They argue this timing alone suggests awareness that approval would not have been granted.

Democratic Congressman Joaquín Castro went further, accusing Trump of learning nothing from past U.S. failures in regime change wars. Castro argued that Trump’s foreign policy doctrine amounts to personal enrichment, claiming the former president is using military power to benefit a small circle of allies and corporate interests under the shield of presidential immunity.

The legal argument against the war is sweeping. Critics say the operation violates international law because the United States was not attacked and did not seek authorization from the United Nations. Domestically, they argue the president has no authority to declare war or carry out regime change without congressional approval, regardless of how the action is framed.

As Americans struggle with rising healthcare costs, inflation, and housing prices, lawmakers warn that billions more could now be spent occupying and “running” another country. The Venezuela crisis has become a flashpoint for public anger, raising urgent questions about accountability, executive power, and whether the United States is once again sliding into an illegal and open-ended foreign war.