Wow! It looks like we are absolutely correct in our morning assessment of the Venezuela take over. This had nothing to do with the drugs, which we showed wasn’t a major issue, it was all about the oil and how that impacts the U.S. dollar.
In a stunning press conference at Mar-a-Lago on January 3, 2026, President Donald Trump outlined a U.S.-led intervention in Venezuela that smacks of imperialism, directly contradicting the anti-nation-building stance he championed during his campaigns. Trump, who ran on promises to end “forever wars” and avoid entangling the U.S. in costly overseas rebuilding efforts like those in Iraq and Afghanistan, has now flipped entirely by committing to a prolonged American administration of a sovereign nation.
This reversal prioritizes resource extraction over democratic principles, with Trump declaring that Venezuelan Vice President Delcy Rodríguez—a key Maduro ally—will temporarily serve as president while closely collaborating with his administration.
No mention was made of opposition leaders like Edmundo González, who claimed victory in the disputed 2024 election, nor of holding new elections to restore legitimate governance.
Central to Trump’s vision is the direct involvement of his inner circle in running Venezuela. He explicitly stated that “the people behind me”—referring to figures on stage like Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio—will oversee the country’s operations, potentially for years, to ensure stability amid the power vacuum created by Nicolás Maduro’s capture. Trump expressed no hesitation about deploying “boots on the ground” if needed, framing U.S. forces as essential to prevent chaos.
American oil companies are being positioned to seize control of Venezuela’s vast petroleum reserves, extracting what the President himself called “a tremendous amount of wealth out of the ground.” This is presented as benefiting Venezuelans and the United States, but in legal and economic reality it overwhelmingly benefits a narrow ruling class: multinational energy firms, financial intermediaries, political elites, and those with privileged access to state power. There is no legal, institutional, or economic mechanism by which this wealth will be equitably distributed to ordinary Venezuelans or ordinary Americans. The profits are privatized; the costs — military, political, and moral — are socialized.
Venezuelan oil revenues are being positioned to fund the very foreign administration imposed upon the country, creating a self-financing structure of control that meets the legal definition of economic occupation. Under the Hague Regulations and Geneva Conventions, an occupying power may not exploit natural resources for its own benefit. Yet that is precisely what is being proposed: resource extraction to fund and justify foreign rule. This is not reconstruction; it is extraction backed by force.
This also functions as a reassertion of control over the global oil-currency system. Since the 1970s, oil has been predominantly traded in U.S. dollars, anchoring American financial power and sanctions leverage. When states move away from dollar-denominated energy trade, they weaken that system. Reasserting control over oil production is therefore also a reassertion of monetary and geopolitical dominance — not a humanitarian or democratic act.
What is being constructed is not a transitional government. It is a fusion of executive authority, military force, and corporate power — an oligarchic regime imposed externally and justified rhetorically as stability. It displaces one form of authoritarianism with another, while concentrating wealth and power further upward.
That is not liberation.
It is the legal and economic consolidation of class power through state violence.
Shockingly, this entire operation bypassed Congress entirely, with no prior communication or authorization despite its magnitude as a de facto takeover of another country. Rubio justified the secrecy by citing risks of leaks and framing it as a “law enforcement” action tied to Maduro’s 2020 indictment, but such unilateral moves erode democratic oversight. Trump’s disregard for congressional input underscores his broader contempt for democratic norms, treating the presidency as unchecked authority in foreign affairs. This intervention is patently illegal under both international law and the U.S. Constitution.
Internationally, it violates Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which states: “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”
By launching strikes, capturing a head of state, and imposing governance without UN approval or self-defense justification, the U.S. breaches this core doctrine prohibiting aggression. Domestically, it contravenes
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, which grants Congress the power: “To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.”
Article I, Section 8, Clauses 12–14: Congress controls military funding and regulation.
Article II, Section 2 makes the President Commander-in-Chief of forces only after Congress authorizes their use.
The War Powers Resolution of 1973 mandates that the president notify Congress within 48 hours of committing forces to hostilities and withdraw them after 60 days without authorization.
This power grab risks global backlash, setting dangerous precedents that could destabilize international relations while undermining America’s democratic foundations. The President cannot unilaterally remove a foreign government, occupy another country, administer its institutions, extract its resources, and deploy troops — all without congressional approval — and still claim constitutional legitimacy. That is not executive authority. That is executive usurpation.
This also represents a complete reversal of Trump’s own political platform. He ran explicitly against nation-building, against endless wars, and against U.S. involvement in foreign governance. He criticized prior administrations for exactly this kind of conduct. Now he is doing it openly — and without constraint.
The greatest danger is not only the immediate act, but the precedent it creates. It signals that democratic oversight can be ignored, that sovereignty is conditional on power, and that military force can be used to secure economic interests while claiming to provide stability. Once this becomes acceptable behavior for one state, it becomes defensible behavior for others — including Russia in Ukraine, China in Taiwan, and potentially many more.
This is not stabilization. It is not democracy promotion. It is the unilateral seizure of political authority and economic resources from a sovereign nation, in violation of international law, the U.S. Constitution, and basic democratic norms.
And that is why this must be understood not as foreign policy — but as a critical democratic threat.
T.A.C.T. calls for immediate congressional scrutiny to halt this overreach. Contacting your congressional representatives is critical because Congress is the only branch with the constitutional authority to authorize war, foreign occupation, and the use of U.S. forces abroad. When the executive branch bypasses Congress, the only democratic remedy is for constituents to force legislative oversight back into the process.
Calls, emails, and written statements to Senators and House members create an official record of public opposition, trigger staff review, and increase the likelihood of hearings, subpoenas, and votes that can restrain or reverse unlawful actions. Even a small number of coordinated contacts can move an issue onto a member’s agenda — especially when the concern involves war powers, constitutional violations, and international law. This is not symbolic participation; it is the mechanism by which constitutional accountability is enforced.
To contact your representatives:
Find your members at house.gov and senate.gov
Call their district or DC offices (calls are logged and weighted more than emails)
Submit written statements through their official websites
Ask explicitly for: hearings, legal justification, War Powers compliance, and a public vote
Share your thoughts on all these developments
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.