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
congressional progressive caucus
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
Labor-Backed Coalition Launches Working-Class Effort to Flip 35+ House Seats in 2026
"Working people deserve leaders who will fight for them, not grovel at the feet of their billionaire donors," said Maurice Mitchell of the Working Families Party, one of the groups involved in the new coalition.
Jul 16, 2025
A coalition of dozens of labor groups and other progressive activist organizations has launched a new $50 million initiative to flip the U.S. House of Representatives in 2026 with a coalition of working-class voters.
The political action committee, Battleground Alliance PAC, announced Wednesday that it will seek to flip at least 35 Republican-held districts for Democrats by mobilizing voters angry about the Trump administration's assault on the social safety net and authoritarian attacks on civil liberties.
The groups will target their efforts toward mobilizing voters who have been hit the hardest by the Republican agenda.
"These are parents who will lose healthcare for their kids, families struggling after [Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program] cuts, seniors not being able to afford their medication, people struggling with higher utility bills, and workers who've watched billionaires get tax breaks while their wages stay flat," the group said Wednesday. "They're not just participating, they're at the center of leading this effort to take back control and make their voices heard at the ballot box next November."
The coalition is attempting to build upon the successes of Battleground New York, which mobilized progressive voters in 2024 to flip back many seats lost to Republicans during the previous cycle. Amid the daily outrages of President Donald Trump's second term, they believe that success can be replicated nationally.
"People are angry for a reason," said Stephanie Porta, campaign manager for the Battleground Alliance. "They've seen their rights stripped, their wages stagnate, their bills skyrocket, their healthcare attacked—and they're done waiting. This isn't about the usual D.C. politics. This is about the majority of Americans saying: enough is enough."
Among the groups taking part in the alliance are the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Working Families Party, Planned Parenthood Votes, Indivisible, and MoveOn.
The announcement of Battleground Alliance came on the same day that the Congressional Progressive Caucus outlined its major priorities for 2026 in a briefing to reporters.
"Working people in America are getting screwed by corrupt politicians and big corporations that are driving costs up and keeping pay and benefits down," said the caucus's chair, Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas).
Casar and his colleagues introduced four "task forces" that "go directly at those big problems facing Americans: fighting corruption and corporate greed in order to lower costs and win better pay and benefits."
The Battleground Alliance is taking a similar approach, focusing on the material effects of the Trump agenda on working people.
"GOP members of Congress betrayed their constituents when they voted to kick 17 million Americans off their health care," said Maurice Mitchell, national director of the Working Families Party. "Working people deserve leaders who will fight for them, not grovel at the feet of their billionaire donors. We're ready to organize in districts all across the country to kick out members of Congress who lied to their constituents and voted for this disastrous budget."
The group is planning to pour $1 million into the most competitive districts in the country, targeting Republicans who voted for Trump's massive budget legislation.
Some of the Republican targets it has already singled out include Rep. David Valadao, whose district in California's San Joaquin Valley is majority Latino and has one of the highest Medicaid enrollment rates in the country; and Rep. Ryan Mackenzie, whose Allentown, Pennsylvania district now has 25,000 people at risk of losing food stamps as a result of the law.
"Working people are done watching politicians in Washington hand out favors to the wealthy while our communities struggle to afford care, housing, and food," said April Verrett, president of SEIU. "Through 2026 and beyond, we will continue to organize in places that they've tried to ignore because that's where real change begins."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'This Fight Is Not Over': Progressives Launch Last-Ditch Push Against GOP Budget Monstrosity
"This country deserves better than this dumpster fire of greed, cruelty, and cowardice."
Jul 02, 2025
Progressives within and outside of Congress are mobilizing and working to rally public opposition on Wednesday as House Republicans moved to put the final stamp of approval on a budget package that includes unprecedented cuts to Medicaid and federal nutrition assistance—alongside trillions of dollars in tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans.
"This fight isn't over, and we're not backing down," Andrew O'Neil, national advocacy director of Indivisible, said following the Republican-controlled Senate's narrow passage of the budget reconciliation bill on Tuesday, a vote so close that Vice President JD Vance was forced to intervene to push the measure over the finish line.
The GOP's margins are similarly thin in the House, with Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) only able to lose three Republican members amid unanimous Democratic opposition.
Indivisible and other advocacy organizations are driving calls and emails to House Republicans on Wednesday urging them to vote down the Senate-passed legislation, which is significantly more expensive and contains more aggressive Medicaid cuts than the bill the House approved in May. Medicaid cuts are highly unpopular with the U.S. public, including among Republican voters.
The phone number for the U.S. House switchboard is (202) 224-3121.
"Your Republican representative could be the deciding vote," Ezra Levin, Indivisible's co-executive director, said in an appearance on MSNBC late Tuesday. "We've got about 26 Republican targets. We need four of them—we just need four. And this is not a done deal."
While a House vote on the legislation could come as soon as Wednesday, far-right hardliners in the Republican caucus are threatening to prevent a quick advance of the bill, pointing to projections that it would add trillions of dollars to the nation's deficit over the next decade.
Reps. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.) and Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) reportedly headed to the White House on Wednesday to meet with Trump administration officials, who have urged Republican holdovers to drop their objections and help pass the budget legislation.
Progressive lawmakers in the House, meanwhile, are united in firm opposition to the bill, which they warn would have catastrophic impacts on vulnerable Americans nationwide.
"No way will I allow [President Donald] Trump and the GOP to rip healthcare and food away from millions of Americans just so he, [Elon] Musk, and their billionaire buddies can get a tax break," Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) said Wednesday, declaring that he will vote "hell no" on the Republican bill.
Today the Senate passed the biggest betrayal of working people in modern history.
It rips health care from 17 million, slashes food aid, and showers billionaires with tax breaks.
Next stop: the House. Progressives will be voting HELL NO. https://t.co/qd4Q13YiNa
— Progressive Caucus (@USProgressives) July 1, 2025
House Republican leaders are hoping to get the bill to President Donald Trump's desk for his signature before the July 4 holiday on Friday.
If passed, experts say the GOP legislation would spark the largest transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich in a single law in U.S. history.
Heidi Shierholz, president of the Economic Policy Institute, said Tuesday that the Republican bill "steals from the poor to give massive tax cuts to the wealthy."
"If the Republicans wanted to add $4 trillion to the national debt, they could have instead written a $12,000 check to each and every adult and child in the United States," said Shierholz. "However, this grotesque bill would cause the bottom 40% of households to lose income on average. This country deserves better than this dumpster fire of greed, cruelty, and cowardice."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular