Did Trump bypass Congress to declare war? Venezuela's escalation of sanctions sparks constitutional controversy

American conservative commentator Tucker Carlson stunned viewers on Wednesday’s “Judging Freedom” program by revealing that a congressional member had informed him that President Trump might announce a military action against Venezuela during his nationwide TV address at 9 p.m. However, Carlson himself also admitted he was not entirely sure whether Trump would officially declare war. As of now, this information has not been confirmed by the White House or any official sources.

Credibility and Controversy Surrounding Carlson’s Revelation

Tucker Carlson is a heavyweight in the American conservative media sphere; during his time at Fox News, his program was a prime-time ratings champion. After leaving Fox News, Carlson turned to independent media but still maintains significant influence. He has close ties to the Trump administration and often receives firsthand information. This leak claims that a congressional member received briefings in advance, which is technically credible since presidents typically notify congressional leaders before major military actions.

However, Carlson also expressed uncertainty himself. He added on the program, “I’m not entirely sure whether Trump will officially announce the initiation of a full-scale war during his speech.” This ambiguous statement has sparked two interpretations. The optimistic view is that Carlson responsibly expressed caution to avoid spreading unverified information. The pessimistic view is that this could be a “trial balloon,” testing public reaction; if public opinion reacts strongly against, Trump could change plans and deny any such intention.

More notably, the timing is suspicious. Less than 48 hours after Trump announced a comprehensive maritime blockade against Venezuela on Truth Social, Carlson broke the war declaration story. This concentrated release of information suggests the White House may be preparing public opinion for a larger-scale military operation. Trump’s modus operandi has always been to first leak messages via social media and friendly outlets, observe market and public reactions, then decide on the final course of action.

According to the U.S. Constitution, a formal declaration of war must be approved by Congress. However, U.S. presidents have considerable discretion in deploying troops overseas, especially under the guise of “emergency” or “self-defense.” If Trump truly bypasses Congress to declare war, he would face serious constitutional challenges. Nonetheless, he could adopt a vague strategy: avoid using the word “declare war” and instead announce a “special military operation” or “counter-terrorism action,” thereby circumventing legal requirements for congressional authorization.

Trump’s Three-Step Approach to Military Escalation in Venezuela

Trump’s posture toward Venezuela has recently shown a clear escalation trend. This escalation is not sudden but a carefully designed gradual pressure strategy.

The logic of this incremental escalation is straightforward: first define the target, then conduct localized strikes, and finally implement a comprehensive blockade. Each step tests the international community and Congress’s bottom line, while paving the way for the next escalation. If this logic continues, the next step could indeed involve larger-scale military actions, including airstrikes on Venezuelan targets or deploying ground troops.

The Venezuelan government issued a statement rejecting Trump’s “absurd threat.” However, Venezuela’s military strength is far inferior to the U.S., and if a real war breaks out, the outcome is almost certain. The issues are the costs: ground war expenses, international reactions, and domestic political consequences in the U.S.

Trump’s Three-Stage Escalation of Military Action Against Venezuela

Stage One: Label as an illegal organization: Trump announced on Truth Social that the Venezuelan regime “has been designated as a foreign illegal organization,” citing reasons such as “theft of American assets, drug trafficking, and human trafficking,” providing a legal basis for subsequent military actions.

Stage Two: Air and sea strikes on drug ships: On September 2 and mid-September 2025, U.S. military conducted two airstrikes against vessels involved in Venezuelan drug smuggling, resulting in 14 deaths. Trump personally ordered the strikes and released a non-classified video showing the ships exploding.

Stage Three: Full maritime blockade: This Tuesday, Trump ordered a “comprehensive and thorough blockade” on all sanctioned oil tankers entering or leaving Venezuela, seizing Venezuelan oil tankers and cutting off its main revenue source.

Congressional Constitutional Disputes and War Authorization Dilemmas

There are serious disagreements within Congress regarding the legality of Trump’s military actions. Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen warned that Pentagon actions could be seen as “unauthorized war attempts.” Republican Senator Rand Paul bluntly stated that a series of recent military actions have already constituted “the initiation of war.”

Texas Democrat Joaquin Castro called the maritime blockade “an unquestionably war act.” He added on social media platform X, “This is a war that Congress has never authorized and the American people do not want.” Currently, some members have introduced resolutions to prevent further military escalation without legislative approval.

Elena Chachko, an international law scholar at UC Berkeley Law School, said that Trump’s claimed “blockade” will pose a new test for presidential power. She stated that blockade has traditionally been considered an authorized “war measure,” but only under strict conditions. She added, “There are serious questions both under domestic law and international law.”

The core of the constitutional crisis lies in the tension between the president’s war powers and Congress’s authority to authorize war. The U.S. Constitution explicitly grants Congress the power to declare war. However, in practice, the president, as commander-in-chief, can act first and report afterward in emergencies. This gray area has been exploited multiple times in history—from Vietnam to Iraq—where presidents have bypassed Congress to initiate substantial wars.

If Trump indeed announces military action against Venezuela tonight, he might adopt two strategies. The first is to invoke the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), claiming Venezuela supports drug trafficking and threatens U.S. security. The second is to justify blockade and strike actions as “self-defense counterattacks,” which do not constitute “war” and thus do not require congressional approval.

However, the legal basis for these arguments is questionable. Venezuela has not directly attacked the U.S., and while drug trafficking is a serious issue, it is not a traditional military threat. If Trump pushes forward regardless, he could face impeachment, federal court injunctions, and international condemnation. But given Trump’s strong style in his second term, he might be willing to bear these political costs to project a “strongman” image.

Currently, markets are watching tonight’s televised speech. If Trump indeed announces major military actions, it could trigger significant financial market volatility. Oil prices might surge (Venezuela is an OPEC member), risk assets including cryptocurrencies could be sold off, and safe-haven assets like gold and U.S. Treasuries would be in demand. For the crypto market, war usually causes short-term panic but benefits in the medium to long term (as fiat credit deteriorates, Bitcoin benefits). However, if the war spirals out of control, systemic risks could overwhelm all assets.