SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
ilhan omar
Omar Brings War Powers Resolution After Trump Bombed Boat in Caribbean With 'No Legal Justification'
"It was not self-defense or authorized by Congress," the Minnesota congresswoman said of Trump's strike on a boat bound from Venezuela, which killed 11 people last week.
Sep 12, 2025
US Rep. Ilhan Omar introduced a war powers resolution in the US House of Representatives on Thursday, seeking to restrain President Donald Trump from conducting attacks in the Caribbean after he ordered a drone strike on a ship from Venezuela last week, killing 11 people.
The Trump administration has claimed, with little evidence, that the boat was a drug trafficking vessel that posed an imminent threat to the United States. But that narrative has come increasingly into doubt in recent days.
In a statement on the resolution provided to The Intercept, Omar (D-Minn.) said:
There was no legal justification for the Trump administration’s military escalation in the Caribbean... It was not self-defense or authorized by Congress. That is why I am introducing a resolution to terminate hostilities against Venezuela, and against the transnational criminal organizations that the administration has designated as terrorists this year. All of us should agree that the separation of powers is crucial to our democracy, and that only Congress has the power to declare war.
Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution gives Congress the "sole authority to declare war," but presidents have often carried out military actions without congressional approval, citing their role as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, particularly since the passage of the Authorization for Use of Military Force in 2001.
The War Powers Act of 1973 allows Congress to check the president's war-making authority, requiring the president to report military actions to Congress within 48 hours and requiring Congress to authorize the deployment of troops after 60 days.
Omar unveiled the resolution alongside several of her fellow members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, including Chair Greg Casar (D-Texas) and caucus whip Rep. Jesús “Chuy” García (D-Ill.).
"Donald Trump cannot be allowed to drag the United States into another endless war with his reckless actions," Casar said. "It is illegal for the president to take the country to war without consulting the people's representatives, and Congress must vote now to stop Trump from putting us at further risk."
In the days following Trump's strike on the ship, the administration's narrative that it contained members of Venezuela's Tren de Aragua gang bound for the United States has been called into question by news reports and by those briefed by the Department of Defense, which the Trump administration recently rebranded as the "Department of War."
After his staff was briefed on Tuesday, Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, told CNN that the Pentagon has "offered no positive identification that the boat was Venezuelan, nor that its crew were members of Tren de Aragua or any other cartel."
While Trump has stated that the boat was en route to the US, the briefers themselves acknowledged that they could not determine its destination. Secretary of State Marco Rubio contradicted the president, saying "these particular drugs were probably headed to Trinidad or some other country in the Caribbean, at which point they just contribute to the instability these countries are facing."
The New York Times, meanwhile, reported Wednesday that the boat "had altered its course and appeared to have turned around before the attack started," which further contradicts the claim of imminent harm to the US.
“There is no evidence—none—that this strike was conducted in self-defense," Reed said. "That matters, because under both domestic and international law, the US military simply does not have the authority to use lethal force against a civilian vessel unless acting in self-defense.”
Even if the people aboard the boat were carrying drugs, as the administration claims, there is no legal precedent for the crime of drug trafficking justifying such an extraordinary use of military retaliation.
The White House has attempted to argue that the president has the legal authority to summarily kill suspected drug smugglers using an unprecedented legal rationale, which labels cartel members as tantamount to enemy combatants, who are allowed to be killed in war, because the product they carry causes thousands of deaths per year in the US. Legal analysts have described this as a flimsy pretext for extrajudicial murder.
Scott R. Anderson, a senior fellow in the National Security Law Program at Columbia Law School and a former legal adviser at the US State Department, wrote for the Lawfare blog:
There is no colorable statutory authority for military action against Tren de Aragua and other similarly situated groups. Occasional suggestions in the press that the Trump administration’s description of Tren de Aragua as a terrorist organization is meant to invoke the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) are almost certainly mistaken: That authorization extends only to the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks and select associates, and no one—not even in the Trump administration—has accused Tren de Aragua of being that.
Marty Lederman, who served as deputy assistant attorney general in the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel from 2009 to 2010, wrote for Just Security:
Regardless of which laws might have been broken, what’s more alarming, and of greater long-term concern, is that U.S. military personnel crossed a fundamental line the Department of Defense has been resolutely committed to upholding for many decades—namely, that (except in rare and extreme circumstances not present here) the military must not use lethal force against civilians, even if they are alleged, or even known, to be violating the law."
The resolution introduced by Omar is the first seeking to restrain Trump's ability to launch military strikes against Venezuela. But it's not the first seeking to rein in his wide-ranging use of unilateral warmaking authority.
In June, following his launch of airstrikes against Iran, war powers resolutions introduced in the House and Senate to limit Trump's actions in the Middle East narrowly failed despite receiving some Republican support.
Though specific attempts to rein in Trump's power have failed, the House did pass a bipartisan resolution earlier this week to repeal the AUMFs issued by Congress in the lead-up to the Iraq War, and which presidents have used for over two decades to justify a wide range of military actions across the Middle East without congressional oversight.
If passed, Omar's measure would require Trump to obtain congressional approval before using military force against Venezuela or launching more strikes on transnational criminal organizations that he has designated as terrorist groups since February, including Tren de Aragua.
García, the Progressive Caucus whip, said the resolution was an effort to begin restoring Congress' authority to check a president operating with impunity.
"The extrajudicial strike against a vessel in the Caribbean Sea is only the most recent of Trump’s reckless, deadly, and illegal military actions. Now, he’s lawlessly threatening a region already profoundly impacted by the destabilization of U.S. actions,” said García. "With this War Powers Resolution, we emphasize the total illegality of his action, and— consistent with overwhelming public opposition to forever war—reclaim Congress' sole power to authorize military action.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Progressives—Who Reviled Charlie Kirk's Politics—Repudiate His Murder
"Unconscionable acts of violence should have no place in our country," said Congresswoman Ilhan Omar—whom Kirk wanted to denaturalize and deport. "Let's pray for no more lives being lost to gun violence."
Sep 10, 2025
Tuesday's assassination of far-right firebrand Charlie Kirk in Utah drew widespread condemnation from many of the same progressive figures who have previously decried his rampant bigotry, dismissal of gun deaths, and promotion of conspiracy theories including the "stolen" 2020 election.
"Political violence has no place in this country. We must condemn this horrifying attack," Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said on the social media site X. "My thoughts are with Charlie Kirk and his family."
Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) said on X that she was sending "sincere condolences to Charlie Kirk's family."
"Violence is unacceptable, always," she added. "Though I disagree with nearly everything he said publicly, I never lose sight of others' humanity. He was someone's son. He was someone's husband. He was a father to two young children. Praying for the [Utah Valley University] community impacted by this horrific act of gun violence."
Today’s act of political violence in Utah against Charlie Kirk is absolutely disgusting and unacceptable. We don’t have to agree on everything, but we should all agree on this: political violence is wrong, and has no place in our democracy
— Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett (@crockett.house.gov) September 10, 2025 at 12:47 PM
Another "Squad" member, Congresswoman Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.)—whom Kirk wanted to strip of her US citizenship and deport to Somalia—posted that "political violence is absolutely unacceptable and indefensible."
"Unconscionable acts of violence should have no place in our country," she added. "Let's pray for no more lives being lost to gun violence."
Kirk, the 31-year-old CEO and co-founder of the conservative youth organization Turning Point USA, was fatally shot during an event at Utah Valley University. The assassin's identity is still not known; The Washington Post reported that "a person of interest is in custody and being interviewed by officials."
Kirk's last words were a characteristically racist attempt to deflect an audience member's question about US mass shootings—one of which occurred at a Colorado high school on the same day as his assassination.
The irony of Kirk's murder was not lost on numerous observers, some of whom posted video of him saying in 2023 that "I think it's worth to have a cost of unfortunately some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment."
Still, even staunch critics of Kirk and his politics in the United States and abroad condemned his murder.
"There is never any place for violence in our politics," ACLU executive director Anthony Romero said in a statement. "The only way to work out differences in a democracy is to work them out together—peacefully through our political system."
"The ACLU condemns this horrific act and extends its sympathies to the family of Charlie Kirk," Romero added.
Scottish lawmaker and former First Minister of Scotland Humza Yousaf said on social media that "I couldn't have disagreed more with Charlie Kirk on virtually every political issue he debated."
"But that is the point, he debated," Yousaf added. "In any society, let alone a democracy, violence can never be justified. I hope God eases the suffering of his wife, children, family, and friends."
I'm horrified by the shooting of Charlie Kirk at a college event in Utah.Political violence has no place in our country.
— Zohran Kwame Mamdani (@zohrankmamdani.bsky.social) September 10, 2025 at 12:34 PM
Political violence must be condemned. Always.I’m praying for Charlie Kirk and his family.
— Nina Turner (@ninaturner.bsky.social) September 10, 2025 at 12:24 PM
Civil rights attorney and transgender rights activist Alejandra Caraballo was among those who expressed deep concern over the direction in which the nation is heading.
"We are in a 'years of lead' scenario where political violence has become normalized," she wrote on the social media site Bluesky. "This is not good for anyone and is deeply dangerous. This level of political violence is not compatible with a functioning society."
"I'm honestly terrified of what the right will use this as justification for," she said of Kirk's assassination. "They're itching to engage in violence against their enemies and this will give them the excuse to do so. This is why political violence is never acceptable. It just descends into uncontrollable chaos and more violence."
Correction: This article has been corrected to remove a quote erroneously attributed to Kirk.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Omar, Ramirez Among First in Congress to Decry 'Unconstitutional' Trump Strike on Boat
"They're now using the failed War on Drugs to justify their egregious violation of international law," the Minnesota progressive said of the Trump administration.
Sep 04, 2025
Congresswomen Ilhan Omar and Delia Ramirez on Thursday strongly condemned the Trump administration's deadly attack on a boat allegedly trafficking cocaine off the coast of Venezuela as "lawless and reckless," while urging the White House to respect lawmakers' "clear constitutional authority on matters of war and peace."
"Congress has not declared war on Venezuela, or Tren de Aragua, and the mere designation of a group as a terrorist organization does not give any president carte blanche," said Omar (D-Minn.), referring to President Donald Trump's day one executive order designating drug cartels including the Venezuela-based group as foreign terrorist organizations.
Trump—who reportedly signed a secret order directing the Pentagon to use military force to combat cartels abroad—said that Tuesday's US strike in international waters killed 11 people. The attack sparked fears of renewed US aggression in a region that has endured well over 100 US interventions over the past 200 years, and against a country that has suffered US meddling since the late 19th century.
"It appears that US forces that were recently sent to the region in an escalatory and provocative manner were under no threat from the boat they attacked," Omar cotended. "There is no conceivable legal justification for this use of force. Unless compelling evidence emerges that they were acting in self-defense, that makes the strike a clear violation of international law."
Omar continued:
They're now using the failed War on Drugs to justify their egregious violation of international law. The US posture towards the eradication of drugs has caused immeasurable damage across our hemisphere. It has led to massive forced displacement, environmental devastation, violence, and human rights violations. What it has not done is any damage whatsoever to narcotrafficking or to the cartels. It has been a dramatic, profound failure at every level. In Latin America, even right-wing presidents acknowledge this is true.
The congresswoman's remarks came on the same day that US Secretary of State Marco Rubio designated a pair of Ecuadorean drug gangs as terrorist organizations while visiting the South American nation. This, after Rubio said that US attacks on suspected drug traffickers "will happen again."
"Trump and Rubio's apparent solution" to the failed drug war, said Omar, is "to make it even more militarized," an effort that "is doomed to fail."
"Worse, it risks spiraling into the exact type of endless, pointless conflict that Trump supposedly opposes," she added.
Echoing critics including former Human Rights Watch director Kenneth Roth, who called Tuesday's strike a "summary execution," Ramirez (D-Ill.) said Thursday on social media that "Trump and the Pentagon executed 11 people in the Caribbean, 1,500 miles away from the United States, without a legal rationale."
"From Iran to Venezuela, to DC, LA, and Chicago, Trump continues to abuse our military power, undermine the rule of law, and erode our constitutional boundaries in political spectacles," Ramirez added, referring to the president's ordering of strikes on Iran and National Guard deployments to Los Angeles, the nation's capital, and likely beyond.
"Presidents don't bomb first and ask questions later," Ramirez added. "Wannabe dictators do that."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular