Kishla Askins: U.S. strikes on Venezuelan vessels must be rooted in law

For almost 250 years, the United States has thrived because it built a system grounded in law, accountability, and disciplined leadership. This is what carried the nation through world wars, economic upheaval, and moments of profound uncertainty. American strength has never come from sudden force or political bravado. It has come from the legitimacy of a constitutional republic that acts with restraint, clarity, and purpose. That commitment is what separates democratic governance from the instability and coercion that define authoritarian regimes.

That foundation is now under pressure.

Since September, the United States has conducted lethal airstrikes on small vessels in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific, described as targeting traffickers linked to Venezuela and neighboring states. As of mid November, at least 83 people have been killed across 21 strikes, with only two known survivors. Reports from families and independent observers indicate that many of those killed were fishers and civilians. United Nations experts and international law scholars warn that these strikes lack a clear self-defense basis and may violate international law. At the same time, the United States has assembled the largest naval presence in the Caribbean since the Cuban Missile Crisis. On November 29, the president declared Venezuelan airspace “closed in its entirety” and signaled willingness to conduct operations on Venezuelan soil. With American personnel positioned near direct action inside a sovereign nation, a critical constitutional question emerges: under what authority?

No one person possesses unilateral authority to invade or conduct sustained operations on foreign soil without congressional authorization, a legitimate self-defense justification, or an established international mandate. None of those conditions currently exist. Members of Congress from both parties have introduced a resolution directing the withdrawal of U.S. forces from hostilities involving Venezuela that have not been authorized by Congress. This moment requires constitutional discipline, not unilateral escalation.

America has spent enough blood and treasure in conflicts launched without clear authorization or achievable end states. Families across this nation have carried the burden of repeated deployments and the grief of loved ones lost. Communities have borne the weight of long-term injuries, trauma, and economic loss that endure long after wars fade from the headlines. Decisions of this magnitude carry consequences for generations and must never be made without the informed consent of the American people. And the American people have spoken. They voted to end open-ended conflicts and bring service members home from forever wars. President Trump pledged to bring service members home and end forever wars. Instead, the country is now edging toward an unauthorized conflict in Venezuela while National Guard units are being used for domestic policing, a misuse of force that strains civil-military norms and erodes public trust. This contradiction is not just political. It is constitutional. It shows how quickly executive action can drift from the mandate voters provided and the legal boundaries that hold our republic together.

Venezuela is only one part of a broader global pattern. Nicolás Maduro’s government continues to dismantle democratic institutions and deepen ties with China, Russia, and Iran. These authoritarian states view instability as an opportunity to expand influence and weaken democratic alliances. Escalating force without legal clarity risks giving Maduro exactly what he wants: a foreign adversary to rally against and justification to tighten his grip on power. A similar challenge is emerging in Eastern Europe. The proposed Ukraine–Russia “peace deal,” which would force Ukraine to surrender sovereign territory and accept Russian oversight, rewards aggression and legitimizes territorial conquest. It would undermine decades of international law and signal to authoritarians that borders can be changed by invasion. Democratic partners warn that such an approach invites further instability, not peace. Across these crises, the pattern is clear. Authoritarian regimes gain strength when democracies lose discipline. They watch closely when constitutional checks are ignored or when unilateral force replaces collective decision-making. They benefit when democracies abandon the very norms that give them strength.

To meet this moment, the United States must take several steps. First, restore constitutional oversight of the use of force. Deploying American personnel into another nation’s territory requires congressional authorization and transparent legal justification. Anything less erodes the guardrails that protect the United States from executive overreach. Second, reinforce alliances. Authoritarian regimes fear a united coalition of democratic nations acting together far more than they fear an isolated America acting alone. Third, reaffirm commitment to international law, including maritime law and the principle that lethal force is a last resort. These rules protect global stability, American service members, and the legitimacy of U.S. actions on the world stage.

At the center of all of this is the Constitution. When leaders across our government take an oath, it is sworn to the Constitution alone, not to any individual or ideology. That oath binds military personnel, federal civilians, elected officials, and national security professionals to the same enduring principle: the rule of law must guide the United States, especially in moments of crisis. When that oath is honored, America leads by example. When it is ignored, democracy weakens.

We are the United States of America. Our strength has never come from how quickly we can use force, but from how carefully and lawfully we choose to use it. In an era of rising authoritarian influence and mounting global risk, the most powerful signal this nation can send is that it will uphold the principles that have guided it for nearly two and a half centuries.

Kishla Askins is a retired U.S. Navy (Mustang) officer, healthcare provider, and national security professional. She is a congressional candidate for Nebraska’s 2nd District.