On the evening of December 16, 2025, political commentator Tucker Carlson set off a firestorm when he claimed that President Donald Trump was poised to announce a U.S. military invasion of Venezuela during his primetime address. According to Carlson, members of Congress had been briefed just a day earlier about the supposedly imminent action, and the plan would be revealed to the nation at 9:00 PM. But as the hour came and went, no such announcement materialized. President Trump made no mention of Venezuela, nor of any military operation targeting the embattled South American nation. The fallout was swift and merciless: media outlets, particularly those on the right, lampooned Carlson for his failed prediction, questioning both his sources and his judgment.
This episode was more than just a media gaffe; it illuminated deeper fissures in American politics, media, and foreign policy. The following day, Carlson appeared on the Judging Freedom podcast with Judge Andrew Napolitano, where he tried to clarify his position and offered a wide-ranging critique of America’s approach to war, executive power, and the erosion of constitutional norms. The conversation, streamed live on December 17, 2025, quickly moved beyond the specifics of Venezuela to grapple with the broader issues of war powers, free speech, and the dangers of unchecked government authority.
"Here’s what I know so far: Members of Congress were briefed yesterday that a war is coming and that it’ll be announced in the address to the nation tonight at nine o’clock by the President," Carlson told Napolitano. He admitted, "Who knows — by the way — if that will actually happen. I don’t know. And I never want to overstate what I know, which is pretty limited, in general." As Barrett Media reported, the lack of any such announcement left Carlson exposed to ridicule, with critics accusing him of fearmongering and irresponsibility.
Yet, the conversation on Judging Freedom was less about the accuracy of a single prediction and more about the systemic trends that have made such confusion possible. Napolitano and Carlson dissected the War Powers Resolution and the Founders’ intent that Congress, not the president, should decide questions of war and peace. Both men lamented how, over the past several decades, the executive branch has steadily accumulated the power to launch military actions under the broad and often vague pretext of national security. "Both parties have quietly normalized unauthorized conflicts under vague ‘national security’ justifications," Napolitano noted, with Carlson agreeing that Congress has ceded its constitutional responsibilities.
For Carlson, the specter of a war in Venezuela was just the latest manifestation of a pattern stretching back 80 years—a pattern of regime-change wars, from Iraq to Libya, that he argued have consistently failed to benefit ordinary Americans. "There’s not been a regime change effort that’s benefited the United States or the world in 80 years that I’m aware of," he said. "And if there is, tell me what it is. I just don’t see any evidence of that. It all seems like a net loss for us." He went on to question the rationale for targeting Venezuela, suggesting that the real issue was control of the nation’s vast oil reserves. "If you want Venezuelan oil to go primarily to the United States, you want to have some influence over it. If you want American companies to extract the oil and improve infrastructure, yeah, probably the last thing you want to do is overthrow the government because then you have chaos, then you have total chaos, and who’s in charge?"
The podcast also delved into the chilling effect on free speech, particularly in the context of bipartisan efforts to censure dissenting voices. Napolitano raised concerns about attempts by Senate Democrats, led by Chuck Schumer, to censure Carlson over his podcast content. Carlson responded, "Both parties are against that now. So that tells you what the future is going to look like. It doesn’t reduce our obligation to do it fearlessly anyway, because like the right itself, the obligation itself is something that we’re born with." He argued that the principle of free speech is under siege not just from the left, but also from elements within the right, pointing to the recent turmoil at the Heritage Foundation as evidence that defending free speech can carry a steep price even among conservatives.
Napolitano and Carlson’s discussion further touched on the moral hazards of modern warfare, with Carlson condemning the intentional killing of innocents as a line that must not be crossed. He insisted, "We are not allowed to kill innocent people. Period. And the consequences for that are eternal. And the consequences in this temporal world are real. So if you go around doing that, you again have to apologize for it. You have to punish the people who did it. That is the line that separates us from the people we say we hate." The two also criticized the collective punishment of populations, drawing uncomfortable parallels with historical atrocities and warning of the dangers of identity politics and tribalism.
The podcast did not shy away from criticizing the current administration’s handling of foreign policy, with both hosts questioning the motivations behind Trump’s support for military interventions abroad. Napolitano asked pointedly, "Donald Trump ran and he repeated this phrase in his inaugural address a year ago—as the peace president. He’s funded a war in Ukraine, he’s funded genocide in Gaza, he’s funding a war in Yemen, he attacked the Houthis. Now he’s going to start a war in Venezuela. What do you think he thinks about?" Carlson responded, "You wonder, how much sovereignty does any Western leader really have? Which is to say, how much ability does any leader have to make independent decisions based on his campaign promises, what he believes, what he thinks is best for his country? You know, I don’t know the answer to that, but maybe less than we imagine."
Throughout the exchange, both men repeatedly returned to the theme of lost constitutional order. Napolitano lamented, "Where is the Congress? What the hell does the Congress do? Why does the Congress let the President set taxes, which he calls tariffs? Why does the Congress let the President kill people just because he calls them narco-terrorists?" Carlson echoed this frustration, observing, "As the system withers, the legislative branch becomes irrelevant. All power vests with the executive. Like this has happened to other empires before. Of course. Yeah, right. This is the Roman Senate."
As the dust settles from Carlson’s failed Venezuela prediction, the broader debate it sparked continues to resonate. The questions raised—about war powers, the role of Congress, the perils of regime change, and the fragility of free speech—are hardly new. But in an era of rapid-fire news cycles and deepening political polarization, they remain as urgent as ever. For now, the prospect of a U.S. war with Venezuela remains unfulfilled, but the underlying tensions and constitutional questions exposed by this episode are far from resolved.
