Native Law Policy

We subscribe to GovTrack that gives updates on current events in Congress, and today we received this update on Venezuela and who has authority to take agressive military action and who authurizes payment of these activities. Below is a summary from GovTrack.

Venezuela and Congress

By Amy West (Jan. 8, 2026)

What has the U.S. done to Venezuela?

Was it an invasion, law enforcement, or extortion? Since last fall we’ve

• bombed small boats and their civilian Venezuelan crews that we have claimed were smuggling drugs to the U.S.
• Brought a fleet of military vessels the region
• Dropped bombs near Caracas, the capital of Venezuela
• Seized President Maduro and his wife and indicted him in federal court over drug trafficking
• Announced a plan to seize some Venezuelan crude oil indefinitely and spend it at the President’s discretion.

Whether any of this was legal is a difficult and a somewhat philosophical question.

What is the War Powers Resolution?

The War Powers Resolution, a 1973 law,, “requires that the President communicate to Congress the committal of troops within 48 hours. Further, the statute requires the President to remove all troops after 60 days if Congress has not granted an extension,” per the Legal Information Institute at Cornell University. Since military action appears to be over, although the President has threatened further action around the world, the War Powers Resolution may have been satisfied.

What are Authorizations for Use of Military Force (AUMFs)?

The Constitution gives the power to declare war to Congress, not the President, but all recent presidents have engaged in military actions without declaring war. In most cases, it came with an authorization from Congress instead.

Per Congress.gov, AUMFs are laws which “permit the President to use United States military forces in pursuit of set objectives and within defined parameters.” Without an AUMF, the President must rely on inherent Constitutional powers of the presidency, which may or may not apply. For example, after the September 11, 2021 attacks, Congress passed an AUMF that was used as the legal basis for military force in a wide range of places around the world because the authorization was for military force against terrorists. That authorization, along with one from 1991, were both repealed in the Fiscal Year 2026 National Defense Authorization Act. President Trump signed that law last year about a week before he attacked Venezuela and captured the Venezuelan president.

Whether removing a head of state is tantamount to declaring war, and thus not permitted without Congress’s approval, is not likely to be resolved.

Are we bound by international law?

Well, we agreed to be bound by international law when we joined the United Nations, of which we are still a member. In general, UN members are prohibited from unilaterally using force against other nations, with very few exceptions. This is the point of having an entity like the UN – to help manage disputes in order to avoid or at least decrease violent conflict around the world. 

On the other hand, who’s going to stop us if we ignore international law?

Can the President control the proceeds from selling Venezuelan oil?

The Constitution is very direct in giving Congress ultimate control over government spending: “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” Trump’s social media post that the “money will be controlled by me” makes a big assumption that Congress writes him a blank check in law first. Currently, many members of Congress are going on the record saying that they want oversight over any US revenues from Venezuelan oil sales, side-stepping the Constitutional issue of how the revenue is spent.

What Might Congress Do?

This week the Senate will vote on a War Powers bill to stop President Trump’s actions in Venezuela. It’s not expected to pass, and certainly not with enough votes to override the President’s veto. Democrats might also withhold votes on upcoming government funding bills, triggering another government shutdown at the end of the month, unless military funding is restricted or to extract other policy concessions around Venezuela and the sale of its oil.

Or Congress could pass legislation affirming the administration’s actions, instead.

What is Congress Likely to Do?

Nothing. It’s the safest choice politically. If you come out too strongly for or against and then public attitudes about the Administration’s actions go heavily one way or the other, it’ll cost votes. So the best thing to do politically is often nothing.

Our next question, was why Greenland? Our research was interesting, that the people of Greenland are Native. Most residents of Greenland are Inuit. The name of the territory in the Greenlandic language is Kalaallit Nunaat, ‘land of the Kalaallit’. The Kalaallit are the Greenlandic Inuit who inhabit the territory’s western region. The Greenlandic Inuit term Nunaat does not include waters and ice. (from Wikipedia) Also oil is a potential resource for development. However in 2025, Greenland voted to stop further attempts to develop oil because the environmental impacts were too high. Are the natural resources of Greenland an attractive target for the US President? Our view is Greenland/Kingdom of Demark, a US ally has a rich cultural history and an independent minded population governing by home rule, and we doubt they would willing become a US Territory.

We also agree with GovTrack, Congress has a lot to weigh polticially on both sides of the question of asserting their authority to stop aggressive military action against these countries, so the end result is likely no action will be taken, unless a bigger crisis occurs.