FILE PHOTO: U.S. President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio attend a dinner with the leaders of the C5+1Central Asian countries of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan, in the East Room of the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., November 6, 2025. REUTERS/Nathan Howard/File Photo
When Donald Trump launched his second presidential campaign — and first as a Republican — in 2015, his Patrick Buchanan-influenced America First views were a radical departure from the aggressively interventionist foreign policy championed by neocons. Trump was a scathing critic of the George W. Bush Administration's invasion of Iraq, which he attacked as an abysmal failure.
But ten months into his second presidency, the Trump Administration — including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth — is going full-fledged interventionist with Venezuela, carrying out a series of military strikes against Venezuelan boats it claims were smuggling illegal drugs to the United States. And Trump and Hegseth are reportedly hoping to topple the authoritarian leftist regime of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, who took over the country after his predecessor, Hugo Chávez, died of cancer.
Much of the criticism of the Trump Administration's Venezuela policy is coming from Democrats, but some conservatives are speaking out as well — including the National Review, founded by the late William F. Buckley 70 years ago in 1955.
In an editorial published on December 2, the Review's conservative editorial board emphasizes that if the Trump Administration is going to push for regime change in Venezuela, a full vote must be held in both chambers of Congress.
"The regime of Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela is malign and illegitimate," the Review journalists argue. "After Maduro stole the 2018 presidential election, nearly 60 countries joined the United States in recognizing Juan Guaidó as the rightful president of that country. Six years later, opposition leader Edmundo González defeated Maduro at the ballot box — but Maduro once again refused to accept the results. Maduro and his henchmen have systematically stolen the wealth of his country and immiserated its people."
They continue, "But the Maduro regime is not merely a domestic problem for Venezuelans because it has directly and consistently threatened American interests. Maduro’s actions have sent millions of Venezuelans into exile, many of whom have ended up in America, straining the resources of state and local governments…. The end of Nicolás Maduro's regime, and its replacement by a democratically elected alternative, would be an unambiguous boon to the United States."
The Review's editorial board, however, goes on to demand that Congress have a voice in the United States' Venezuela policy.
"We are attacking and destroying suspected drug-smuggling boats on the high seas," the Review board writes. "And the president of the United States declared on social media that the airspace over Venezuela is closed — a move that has been traditionally understood as an act of war and one that can only be enforced by U.S. military power. All of these moves indicate that the United States is strongly contemplating regime change — not merely a counterdrug campaign. But if President Trump intends to use military force to topple Maduro, or coerce him into exile, he should go to Congress to ask for an authorization for the use of military force."
The conservative writer continues, "He should do this not only because such a request would place the decision to declare war, in both the spirit and the letter of our Constitution, where it belongs — Congress — but because this administration has made no sustained effort to explain to the American people why Venezuela's current government warrants removal at the cost of American treasure and, very possibly, American lives…. If the decades since 9/11 have taught us anything, it should be that seeking congressional authorization is not just the right thing, but the wise thing."
The National Review's full editorial is available at this link.