In a series of dramatic moves that have reverberated throughout Latin America and the halls of Congress, President Donald Trump has asserted an unprecedented level of executive power—raising profound questions about the limits of presidential authority, the future of U.S. foreign policy, and the fate of democracy itself. As the 2026 midterm elections approach and Republicans cling to a razor-thin majority in the House, the stakes could hardly be higher.
On January 3, 2026, U.S. military forces seized Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro in a surprise raid on Caracas, an operation that sent shockwaves through the region. According to BBC News, the United States had accused Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, of drug trafficking and other crimes, and swiftly brought them to face charges on American soil. The consequences of this action, however, extended far beyond the courtroom.
Venezuela, a longtime ally of Cuba, had been sending around 35,000 barrels of oil per day to the island nation—a lifeline for Cuba’s struggling economy. But in the days following the Caracas raid, the Trump administration began confiscating sanctioned Venezuelan oil tankers, including a fifth vessel seized on January 9, as reported by BBC News. The impact was immediate: Cuba’s fuel and electricity crisis deepened, and its leaders lashed out at Washington’s interference.
President Trump, never one to mince words, issued a stark warning on Truth Social on January 11: “There will be no more oil or money going to Cuba—ZERO! I strongly suggest they make a deal, BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE.” He did not specify what kind of deal he had in mind, but the message was clear—Cuba’s days of relying on Venezuelan oil were over, at least as far as the White House was concerned.
Cuban officials responded with defiance. Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez declared that Cuba had “the absolute right to import fuel from any willing exporter without interference or subordination to the unilateral coercive measures of the United States.” President Miguel Diaz-Canel went further, stating, “Those who turn everything into a business, even human lives, have no moral authority to point fingers at Cuba for anything, absolutely anything.”
Trump’s actions in Venezuela and his threats against Cuba are part of a larger pattern—one that has seen the president revive and rebrand the 1823 Monroe Doctrine as the “Donroe Doctrine,” emphasizing U.S. supremacy in the Western Hemisphere. According to BBC News, Trump has justified this aggressive posture as necessary to combat drug trafficking and left-wing governments he views as hostile to American interests. He has even threatened military intervention in Colombia and Mexico, though Mexico’s President Claudia Sheinbaum has firmly rejected any U.S. military action on her country’s soil.
The president’s approach has sparked fierce debate at home. On January 8, Trump took to Truth Social to claim sweeping authority over military deployments, writing, “The War Powers Act is Unconstitutional, totally violating Article II of the Constitution, as all Presidents, and their Departments of Justice, have determined before me.” As AP reported, Trump’s assertion went too far: while presidents from both parties have often challenged congressional limits on their war-making powers, courts have consistently declined to rule on the constitutionality of the 1973 War Powers Resolution, instead sidestepping the issue altogether.
The War Powers Resolution, passed in the aftermath of the Vietnam War, requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying armed forces and to withdraw them within 60 days unless Congress explicitly authorizes the action. But, as AP notes, presidents have often treated these requirements as voluntary, seeking congressional “support” rather than “permission.” Trump’s unilateral action in Venezuela, without congressional authorization, has reignited this long-standing constitutional tug-of-war.
Within days of the Caracas raid, the U.S. Senate advanced a resolution to limit further military operations in Venezuela without congressional approval. Notably, five Republicans joined Democrats in supporting the measure, though its prospects remain dim given the need for Trump’s signature and the uncertain support in the Republican-controlled House.
Critics argue that Trump’s actions have rendered Congress impotent and ignored the will of the people. In a letter published in the Arizona Daily Sun, Chuck Barnes of Flagstaff accused Congressman Eli Crane of contributing to ruinous increases in ACA insurance premiums for over 400,000 Arizonans and of remaining silent as Trump “flouted not only the will of the people in regard to Venezuela, but also basically ignored Congress and rendered it impotent.” Barnes charged that Trump was “unilaterally attempting to steal all the oil he possibly can from Venezuela for his rich buddies,” calling it a “high crime.”
Trump’s sense of boundless authority is not limited to foreign affairs. In a video shared by the veterans group Elevating Voices of Veterans on August 27, 2025, Trump declared, “I'm not a dictator ... but I can do anything I want. I'm the President of the United States. I don’t need international law; I am restrained only by my own morality.” The statement, echoing earlier controversial remarks, has fueled concerns about the erosion of democratic norms and checks on presidential power.
With the 2026 midterm elections looming, Trump has warned House Republicans that losing their slim majority could expose him to impeachment. As Daily Sabah explains, three U.S. presidents—Andrew Johnson, Bill Clinton, and Trump himself—have been impeached by the House, but none removed from office by the Senate. Removal would require a two-thirds vote in the Senate, a high bar that seems unlikely to be cleared in the current political climate.
Trump’s reliance on “raw power, strength and force” as tools of international relations, as described by his deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, marks a sharp departure from the post-World War II consensus favoring alliances and rule-based order. Instead, Trump’s foreign policy has been characterized by coercion, preemptive strikes, and a willingness to use military might to achieve U.S. objectives—sometimes at the expense of international law and long-standing diplomatic norms.
For critics, this approach is nothing less than imperialism, a return to the “law of the jungle” that risks destabilizing not only Latin America but the world order itself. Supporters, however, argue that Trump is simply restoring American strength and protecting national interests in a dangerous world.
As the dust settles from the raid in Caracas and the standoff with Cuba intensifies, the United States faces a moment of reckoning. Will Congress reassert its constitutional role in matters of war and peace, or will the president’s assertion of near-limitless authority become the new normal? The answer may depend on the outcome of the upcoming elections—and on whether Americans are willing to accept a presidency bound only by “its own morality.”
