The U.S. military has now conducted two strikes on Venezuelan vessels allegedly operated by a “designated narco-terrorist organization,” per Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
The legality of the attacks is being heavily questioned by legal experts and members of Congress who argue, among other things, that the U.S. government had no legal basis to kill those on board.
The potential illegality of the strikes should alarm Americans. But also alarming is that government officials don’t seem to take seriously the need to justify the reasons for their use of force, which should only be wielded to protect the rights of Americans. This is part of a broader pattern where the administration engages in controversial uses of force, or threatens it, without explanation.When asked about the legal authority for the strike on the Venezuelan vessel two weeks ago, Secretary Hegseth responded that “we have the absolute and complete authority to conduct that.” He said he had “no reason to give adversaries and the public any more information,” suggesting that the laws invoked for the attack are some sort of state secret. He did not actually cite the authority, essentially intending Americans to take his word for it.
While Maduro’s Venezuela is a rogue, lawless regime that has no “rights” and deserves no consideration, that doesn’t mean that the American government should ignore our own laws to attack a criminal regime, or dismiss the importance of legally justifying those actions. (The “war on drugs,” and whether attacking alleged drug dealers is in America’s self-interest, deserves its own article.)
Vice-president JD Vance took to social media to assert, without argument, that “killing cartel members who poison our fellow citizens is the highest and best use of our military.” Vance’s stance is not, by any stretch, obvious nor remotely uncontroversial. He didn’t explain how that falls under a legitimate use of the U.S. military per current laws.
Vance later responded to a user on X who stated that the operation was a “war crime,” to which Vance replied “I don’t give a s***what you call it.”
Whether the “war crimes” accusation is correct or not is immaterial: Vance’s attitude shows contempt for the need to justify the government’s actions. That the vice president doesn’t care whether the administration committed a “war crime” is troubling.
This dismissive attitude is part of a broader pattern.
As I recently argued in these pages, the government, without any due process nor evidence of wrongdoing presented to the public or in a court of law, sent 250 migrants to a confinement center for terrorists in El Salvador. The government expected Americans to simply trust it that what it did was lawful. No explanation was given.
More recently, the President threatened Chicago with “war:” he posted on his social media that “Chicago is about to find out why it’s called the Department of WAR.” He later said that the federal government is “going in” to Chicago because the city is “a hellhole” due to crime.
One of the many reasons why the president’s post is concerning is that he has not explained the legal authority he’d invoke to send federal forces to the city (many experts agree it’s unconstitutional). Furthermore, he hasn’t provided any evidence of the allegedly massive “crime problem” Chicago is suffering. Violent crime in Chicago has, in fact, sharply declined recently. The reason for targeting Chicago specifically (a blue city) has also gone unexplained. Several other cities, mostly under Republican leadership, have higher crime rates.
The common thread behind the three instances is that they all display the government’s disregard for evidence and argumentation for its actions. This phenomenon is not unique to the Trump administration, but how brazenly it displays this attitude when communicating with the public is rather novel. There’s not even an attempt to make an argument in many cases.
The American government does not rule by whim; it is a rights-protecting institution bound by law. Government officials should be able to publicly state the authority that permits their use of force and explain it as needed. The fact that they don’t should make Americans suspicious that there is no such authority or even an effort to argue for one.
This unserious attitude towards the use of force should not become routine. A Secretary of State should be able to answer the legal authority invoked to carry out a deadly military strike. The government should not imprison individuals without presenting evidence of wrongdoing. A president should not threaten an American city with “war.”
The use of force can never be taken lightly. Government officials owe Americans explanations. If they don’t provide those explanations, the press should push for answers so Americans can evaluate whether the government is using its delegated powers correctly.
Agustina Vergara Cid is a columnist for the Southern California News Group and Young Voices contributor. Follow her on X @agustinavcid