Mr. REED. Mr. President, last week, this body advanced a War Powers Resolution to rein in President Trump's unauthorized military actions in Venezuela. This week, we will vote on final passage. I urge my colleagues to support it.

It is important to recall how we arrived here. What happened on January 3--the military raid in Caracas, the capture of Nicolas Maduro, and the President's declaration that the United States will “run” Venezuela and seize its oil--was not an isolated incident; it was a culmination of a monthslong campaign built on dubious legal arguments, institutional failures, and Congress' willful abdication of our constitutional duties.

For months, my colleagues and I warned that President Trump's military campaign against the alleged drug boats was strategically incoherent and legally questionable. We warned that the massive military buildup was not about narcotics trafficking. We warned that this campaign was always directed at military action against Venezuela.

At every turn, this body had the opportunity to exercise oversight and demand accountability, and at every turn, we failed to do so. Now we must correct that failure.

President Trump began laying the foundation for this operation--all the operations in Venezuela--the moment he was sworn in. On his first day in office, he designated multiple drug cartels as terrorist organizations. Shortly thereafter, he ended temporary protected status for some 350,000 Venezuelan migrants and authorized holding some at the naval station at Guantanamo before deportation.

On March 15, the President invoked the Alien Enemies Act--a wartime authority that had not been used since World War II--and declared that Tren de Aragua, or TdA, was a cartel plotting to invade and actively invading the United States as an “invading force.” He did this despite a National Intelligence Council assessment in April of 2025 that concluded the Venezuelan Government was not directing an invasion of the United States by TdA.

It would not be the last time President Trump disregarded the law and the facts to achieve his policy goals.

Also, by last summer, it was clear that, in addition to Secretary Hegseth, Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller and Secretary of State Marco Rubio were engaged in planning these various proposed operations, and their personal agendas converged. Their goal was ultimately to destabilize and depose Maduro and secure access to Venezuelan's oil reserves.

Over the summer and fall, the Department of Defense flowed massive military assets into the Caribbean: the Iwo Jima Amphibious Ready Group, the 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit, attack submarines, P-8 Poseidon aircraft, Aegis destroyers, F-35 fighter jets, and eventually the USS Gerald R. Ford Carrier Strike Group. The administration never explained why this buildup was necessary other than vague references to drug interdiction. It was clear then and it is perfectly clear now that they were preparing for an attack on Venezuela.

By late summer, President Trump had signed a secret directive ordering the Pentagon to conduct maritime strikes on drug boats.

Secretary Hegseth then signed an execute order, or EXORD, directing lethal military strikes against alleged drug boats. He has refused to submit that EXORD to Congress despite legal requirements for him to do so. By not following a statutory requirement to submit these EXORDs to Congress, Secretary Hegseth and the President are breaking the law.

On September 2, the U.S. military carried out its first strike, killing 11 individuals on an alleged drug boat. Additional strikes continued throughout the fall and winter, and to date, the U.S. military has conducted 35 known strikes, killing at least 120 people.

President Trump tries to justify these lethal attacks by creating a new term—"designated terrorist organization”--a term that does not exist in U.S. law or anywhere else, so far as we have been able to determine. What does exist in law--authorized by Congress--is the “foreign terrorist organization” designation, which authorizes legal and economic sanctions. In other words, designating a cartel as a foreign terrorist organization limits that group's financial, property, and travel interests. It does not authorize lethal military action. We have searched high and low for a designation authorized by Congress of a group that would automatically allow lethal action, and we have not found it. Congress is still waiting for the President to publicly release the legal opinion underlying these legal actions preceding the recent operation in Venezuela, Operation Absolute Resolve. They have not done so yet, although they have released the latest legal opinion.

Even more troubling is that, in the process of conducting these strikes on the alleged drug boats, the JAGs--the judge advocates general--who had to opine on the legality, did not have access to this controlling legal opinion by the Department of Justice. They didn't get access to it until November, which was long after many of these strikes took place.

The legal foundation for this campaign and the operations that President Trump engaged in became extraordinarily tenuous during the September 2 strike. According to numerous public reports, after the initial attack, two survivors were left floating on the wreckage of their boat, miles from land. The United States had complete control of the skies and waters for miles around. Yet, after monitoring these survivors on video for the better part of an hour or at least 40-some-odd minutes, the order was given to fire lethal rounds at these survivors.

Even if one accepts the President's determination that we are in an armed conflict with cartels, the Geneva Conventions still apply.

Article 12 of the second Geneva Convention defines “shipwrecked” persons as those “in peril at sea or in other waters from any cause.”

The U.S. Navy's “Commander's Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations” makes clear that “following each naval engagement at sea, belligerents are obligated to take all possible measures to search for and rescue the shipwrecked.”

The Department of Defense's “Law of War Manual” states that members of the Armed Forces must refuse to comply with clearly illegal orders, including law of war violations. It even provides a definition and an example to avoid confusion:

For example, orders to fire upon the shipwrecked would be clearly illegal.

That is our law. That is the manual of the Department of Defense.

The administration has released a video of all of these attacks except this one, and I think it would be helpful to the public--to all of us--to make that video available.

As we all know, on January 3, this campaign reached a climax. U.S. forces conducted airstrikes to neutralize anti-aircraft systems, carried out cyber operations to shut down power in Caracas, and executed a helicopter assault on the Presidential compound to seize Maduro and his wife. The tactical success of this mission is a testament to their capabilities and also to the incredible courage and quality of the men and women of our Armed Forces.

However, military skill is not the same as strategic wisdom.

Executing a successful raid does not constitute a plan for governing a nation. Indeed, alleviating the plight and misery of the Venezuelan people appears nowhere in the administration's stated plans for the future of Venezuela.

Instead, President Trump announced that the U.S. was “going to run the country” and seize control of Venezuelan oil production. He stated that “we are ready to stage a second and much larger attack if we need to.” So the possibility of hostilities certainly still exists in the President's mind, and he expects to be involved in Venezuela for years to come. This is not really a plan; it is an aspiration. Even the experts in the oil industry suggest that it is not one that is feasible at this moment.

Under international law, the raid on January 3 violates article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, which prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. The United States is bound by treaty to follow the U.N. Charter. The Constitution makes treaties part of the “supreme law of the land,” and the President is bound by his oath to ensure the laws are faithfully executed.

The administration, however, seems to have determined that it can ignore the supreme law of the land because it claims it was simply enforcing the law. That is wrong and cynical, and we are in a situation where the President continues to assert that we can use hostilities at any time. In fact, on January 9, he said, “We are not afraid of boots on the ground.”

Let me, for a moment, point out another great hypocrisy that has arisen in this situation. This all began as a way to prevent drugs from reaching this country and affecting families throughout this country.

The President was standing up and down, spouting about how he has gotten rid of fentanyl. Of course, fentanyl does not come out of this area of the world.

But this is one of the interesting things that happened just last night: President Trump canceled $2 billion in grants for the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. These were grants intended to fund overdose prevention work in communities, to provide lifesaving reversal drugs, and to fund treatment for people with opioid addiction. These are the very programs that put people on a path toward long-term recovery to avoid deaths through drugs. The Trump administration is prepared to commit billions of dollars to attack Venezuela but will take it from those people who are suffering from drug addiction in the United States.

It is our duty to ensure that the United States engages in armed conflict only after having the approval of Congress. This body has had every opportunity up until now to demand accountability, and too many of us have refused. The President has flouted the law, and we have failed in our duty to correct it. So we must, I think, vote for this resolution. It is our responsibility. It is the oath we took, and it is the oath, tonight, that we must follow.

I yield the floor.