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
war powers resolution
Trump's Oil Embargo on Cuba Should Be Seen for What It Is: An Unprovoked Act of War
When economic measures are structured in ways that foreseeably disrupt essential civilian infrastructure, should they remain insulated from the congressional scrutiny required for military hostilities?
Feb 13, 2026
For decades, American leaders have described economic sanctions as the “peaceful alternative” to war—the space between diplomacy and bombs. Sanctions, we are told, are restraint.
But what happens when economic pressure shuts down power grids? When oil flows are deliberately constricted? When hospitals lose electricity, water systems falter, airports close, and entire populations endure 24-hour blackouts?
At what point does economic coercion stop being diplomacy and begin resembling siege?
Cuba today offers a sobering case study. Severe fuel shortages have led to prolonged blackouts, aviation fuel depletion, transportation paralysis, and mounting strain on hospitals and water systems. The United Nations has warned that without restored energy flows, the country risks systemic collapse. The Trump administration’s recent emergency measures—including secondary tariffs aimed at countries supplying oil to Cuba—mark a structural shift. The pressure is no longer confined to bilateral embargo. It now reaches third countries and energy supply chains.
Sanctions are often described as the alternative to war. But when structured to constrict energy lifelines and induce systemic deprivation, they can become war by other means.
This is not a narrow trade dispute. It is energy denial.
And energy is the backbone of civilian life.
The United States may have legitimate national security concerns regarding Cuba—allegations of intelligence cooperation with rival powers, human rights violations, regional instability. Those concerns deserve serious evaluation. But the constitutional question remains: When economic measures are structured in ways that foreseeably disrupt essential civilian infrastructure, should they remain insulated from the congressional scrutiny required for military hostilities?
The War Powers Resolution of 1973 was enacted in the shadow of Vietnam. Its purpose was simple: to ensure that decisions that risk war reflect the “collective judgment” of both Congress and the President. If US armed forces are introduced into hostilities, the president must report to Congress within 48 hours. Within 60 days, Congress must authorize the action—or it must end.
The resolution was designed to prevent unilateral executive entanglement in war.
But it was written for a world of tanks and troops.
It does not contemplate 21st-century economic statecraft—where power grids can be destabilized without a single soldier crossing a border, and where sanctions regimes can function, in practice, like blockades.
Modern sanctions are not limited to asset freezes or visa bans. Increasingly, they target energy flows, banking systems, insurance markets, and shipping networks. They employ secondary penalties—punishing third countries that engage in prohibited commerce. They leverage emergency declarations that can persist for years, even decades.
When economic measures constrict oil—the fuel that powers electricity generation, water purification, hospitals, refrigeration, aviation, and transportation—their societal impact can mirror the effects of siege warfare.
Yet constitutionally, they are treated as routine foreign commerce regulation.
That gap is no longer sustainable.
Economic power is national power. When wielded coercively at scale, it can destabilize regions, accelerate migration crises, and generate humanitarian consequences that reverberate far beyond the intended target. It can entrench ruling elites rather than dislodge them. It can undermine US credibility. And it can blur the line between pressure and punishment.
Congress must modernize the War Powers Resolution to reflect this reality.
The reform need not prohibit sanctions. Nor should it weaken legitimate national security tools. But it should establish guardrails.
At minimum, Congress should require that when emergency-based economic measures:
- Target essential civilian infrastructure such as energy or water systems;
- Impose extraterritorial penalties on third countries;
- Produce measurable humanitarian strain; and
- Are explicitly intended to compel regime-level political change;
the president must submit a formal report to Congress within 48 hours—just as required when troops are introduced into hostilities.
And within 60 days, Congress should vote to authorize, modify, or terminate those measures.
This would not equate sanctions with war. It would not declare economic pressure unconstitutional. It would simply restore shared judgment in situations where economic instruments produce effects historically associated with warfare.
Emergency powers were designed for extraordinary threats—not for structural permanence. When emergency authorities become normalized, oversight attenuates. The longer a “national emergency” persists, the less it resembles an emergency.
If sanctions are genuinely necessary to protect US security, Congress should be willing to stand behind them. If they are not, Congress should have the institutional responsibility to recalibrate them.
Democratic accountability strengthens national power; it does not weaken it.
Cuba’s current trajectory underscores the urgency. Prolonged blackouts and energy scarcity do not fall neatly on government officials alone. They cascade through hospitals, schools, food storage, transportation, and tourism. They shape migration patterns and regional stability. They can generate humanitarian crises that require international response.
History offers caution. Decades of sanctions in Cuba have not produced regime change. Studies of sanctions more broadly show limited success in transforming consolidated political systems. More often, sanctions harden elites, shift burdens onto civilians, and narrow diplomatic space.
That does not mean sanctions have no role. It means they must be evaluated not only for intent, but for effect.
Strength is not measured solely by the ability to impose pressure. It is measured by the wisdom to calibrate it.
The United States is most credible when it demonstrates that its power operates within constitutional boundaries. Updating the War Powers Resolution to address large-scale economic coercion would signal that democratic oversight keeps pace with modern instruments of statecraft.
To the Trump administration: Emergency authority carries immense responsibility. Energy denial that risks humanitarian collapse may not ultimately advance US security interests. Recalibration—maintaining targeted pressure while preventing civilian infrastructure breakdown—reflects prudence, not weakness.
To Congress: Your war powers are not limited to bullets and bombs. They extend to the conditions that make conflict more likely. Modernize the law.
To scholars, institutions, and civil society: Engage respectfully, but firmly. Present data. Highlight humanitarian indicators. Encourage constitutional balance. The debate should not be partisan. It should be structural.
Sanctions are often described as the alternative to war. But when structured to constrict energy lifelines and induce systemic deprivation, they can become war by other means.
The War Powers Resolution was born of a constitutional reckoning. Half a century later, economic statecraft demands another.
History will not ask whether America had power. It will ask whether it used that power wisely—and whether it subjected that power to the discipline of democracy.
Keep ReadingShow Less
House Republicans Defeat Another Venezuela War Powers Resolution by 'Tightest Margin'
"The maniac in the White House does not have the authority to bomb and invade anywhere he wants across the globe," said Rep. Rashida Tlaib. "Congress must put an end to this."
Jan 22, 2026
The latest in a series of congressional efforts to rein in President Donald Trump's military aggression against Venezuela failed Thursday as Republican lawmakers again defeated a war powers resolution by the tightest possible margin.
House lawmakers voted 215-215 on H.Con.Res.68—introduced last month by Rep. James McGovern (D-Mass.)—which "directs the president to remove US armed forces from Venezuela unless a declaration of war or authorization to use military force for such purpose has been enacted."
Unlike in the Senate, where the vice president casts tie-breaking votes, a deadlock in the House means the legislation does not pass.
Every House Democrat and two Republicans—Reps. Don Bacon of Nebraska and Thomas Massie of Kentucky—voted in favor of the measure. Every other Republican voted against it. Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Calif.) did not vote.
The House vote came a week after Vice President JD Vance’s tie-breaking vote was needed to overcome a 50-50 deadlock on a similar resolution introduced last month by Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY).
The War Powers Resolution of 1973—also known as the War Powers Act—was enacted during the Nixon administration toward the end of the US war on Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos. The law empowers Congress to check the president’s war-making authority by requiring the president to report any military action to Congress within 48 hours. It also mandates that lawmakers approve any troop deployments lasting longer than 60 days.
Thursday's vote followed this month's US bombing and invasion of Venezuela and kidnapping of its president, Nicolás Maduro, and his wife on dubious "narco-terrorism" and drug trafficking allegations. Trump has also imposed an oil blockade on the South American nation, seizing seven tankers. Since September, the US has also been bombing boats accused of transporting drugs in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean.
"If the president is contemplating further military action, then he has a moral and constitutional obligation to come here and get our approval," McGovern said following the vote.
House Foreign Affairs Committee Ranking Member Gregory Meeks (D-NY) lamented the resolution's failure, saying, "The American people want us to lower their cost of living, not enable war."
Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) said on Bluesky: "Only Congress has the authority to declare war. Today, I voted for a war powers resolution to ensure Trump cannot send OUR armed forces to Venezuela without explicit authorization from Congress."
Cavan Kharrazian, senior policy adviser at the advocacy group Demand Progress, also decried the resolution's failure.
“We are deeply disappointed that the House did not pass this war powers resolution, though it's notable that it failed only due to a tie," he said.
"As with the recent Senate vote, the administration expended extraordinary energy pressuring Republicans to block this resolution," Kharrazian added. "That effort speaks for itself: With the American people tired of endless war, the administration knows that a Congress willing to enforce the law can meaningfully curtail illegal and escalatory military action. We urge members of Congress to continue fully exercising their constitutional authority over matters of war.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Blindly Endorsing' Trump Crimes, Senate GOP Kills Venezuela War Powers Bill
"Senate Republicans continually fall in line behind Donald Trump, no matter how reckless, no matter how unconstitutional," fumed Sen. Chuck Schumer.
Jan 14, 2026
US Senate Republicans on Wednesday defeated the latest in a series of war powers resolution aimed at blocking President Donald Trump from further unauthorized military attacks on Venezuela, a result that came after the president pressured a pair of GOP lawmakers who previously voted to advance the measure to flip.
Vice President JD Vance's tie-breaking vote was needed to overcome a 50-50 deadlock on the resolution introduced last month by Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) “to block the use of the US armed forces to engage in hostilities within or against Venezuela unless authorized by Congress” as required by the 1973 War Powers Act.
Two GOP senators who voted earlier this month to advance the resolution—Josh Hawley of Missouri and Todd Young of Indiana—voted against the legislation on Wednesday. This, after Trump publicly lambasted five Republican senators who voted to advance the bill, ensuring its temporary survival.
Paul and fellow GOP Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska joined Democrats and Independents who caucus with them, Sens. Angus King of Maine and Bernie Sanders of Vermont, in voting for the resolution.
"The chances of us getting into an endless war are even greater."
Hawley said he was swayed by Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who told the senator “point blank, we’re not going to do ground troops" in Venezuela following the bombing, invasion, and kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife earlier this month.
Young shared a letter from Rubio stating that Trump will “seek congressional authorization in advance (circumstances permitting)” if he decides on any “major military operations” in Venezuela. He also warned on social media that "a drawn-out campaign" in the Venezuela "would be the opposite of President Trump's goal of ending foreign entanglements."
The resolution's co-sponsors accused their Republican colleagues of enabling Trump's lawbreaking and endless wars.
"Senate Republicans continually fall in line behind Donald Trump, no matter how reckless, no matter how unconstitutional, no matter the potential cost of American lives," Schumer said at a press conference following the vote. "They go along with the president, who is defying what the Constitution requires."
"The chances of us getting into an endless war are even greater, because when the Republicans rubber-stamp everything [Trump] does, the restraints go away," Schumer continued. "Donald Trump said he's not afraid of putting boots on the ground in Venezuela when asked how long it would take—one year, two years, three years, even that wasn't long enough; he said much longer—that's not ambiguous."
"So why wouldn't our Republican colleagues just do what Congress is supposed to do, assert our authority, and let's have a debate?" Schumer added. "What has happened tonight is a roadmap to another endless war because this Senate, under Republican leadership, failed to assert its legitimate and needed authority."
Senate Republicans just BLOCKED the bipartisan War Powers resolution to end the illegal war in Venezuela. They voted for forever wars, and against the best interests of the American people.
— Senator Jeff Merkley (@merkley.senate.gov) January 14, 2026 at 4:07 PM
Other Democratic senators also decried Wednesday's vote, with Alex Padilla of California saying that the "Senate Republican majority just walked away from their constitutional duty and chose to rubber-stamp Trump’s ‘act now, plan later’ military intervention in Venezuela."
"They are blindly endorsing the actions of a president who cannot articulate a clear mission or long-term strategy in the region, putting American troops in harm’s way, and gambling with billions of taxpayer dollars," he continued. "Trump campaigned on ending endless wars, not starting new ones. He lied to Congress and the American people, cozying up to Big Oil while hiding behind claims of combating drug trafficking just after pardoning another head of state found guilty of helping smuggle 400 tons of cocaine into our country."
“If Senate Republicans were truly ‘America First,’ they would stand up for the Constitution they swore to defend and reclaim Congress’ authority instead of once again surrendering it to an out-of-control president," Padilla added.
Advocacy groups also condemned the Senate vote.
BREAKING: The Venezuela War Powers Resolution has failed in the Senate.J.D. Vance broke a 50-50 tied vote on a point of order to discard the resolution.70% of the U.S. opposes this war.This government isn't representing them. It's representing the oil & arms industries.
[image or embed]
— CODEPINK (@codepink.bsky.social) January 14, 2026 at 3:51 PM
"What we saw was an effort to dissuade senators from exercising their jurisdiction over war by threatening political careers and offering nonbinding assurances the administration hopes Congress will rely on, even though its actions give Congress no reason to do so," Demand Progress senior policy adviser Cavan Kharrazian said.
"Congress’ war powers don’t rest on trust," he added, "they rest on law, and legal obligations don’t disappear because of promises."
Robert Weissman, co-president of the consumer watchdog group Public Citizen, said in a statement that “Donald Trump and Senate Republican leadership can bully their way out of a war powers resolution but that doesn’t change the basic facts: Trump’s bombing of Venezuela and abduction of its leader was wrong, unconstitutional, and a screaming violation of international law."
"Trump has dropped all pretense that this is anything other than a military action for oil and empire," Weissman continued. "Neither has any support among the American people, whose opposition to intervening in Venezuela will only grow—especially as US oil companies demand taxpayer subsidies and guarantees as a condition of investing in Venezuela."
“The so-called America First president has become the America Bombs First president, making the world a far more dangerous place," he added. "Shame on Republicans for failing to stand up, yet again, to what they know are authoritarian and unconstitutional actions.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular