United States Senate: Senator Edward Markey's Inquiry Letter to President Trump on Military Intervention in Venezuela

Key Chapter Title List

1. Illegal Military Intervention Without Congressional Authorization and the Resurgence of "Gunboat Diplomacy"
2. Misleading Congress and Evading Obligations Under the War Powers Act
3. The Core Motivation for Military Action: Controlling Venezuela's Oil Resources
4. Lack of a "Post-Action Plan" and Risks of Triggering Long-Term Instability and Humanitarian Crisis
5. Historical Lessons Warn: Regime Change Based on Oil Interests and Its Catastrophic Consequences
6. Departure from Democratic Self-Determination Principles and the Shadow of U.S. History Supporting Puppet Regimes
7. Precedents of Iraq and Afghanistan: How Invasions with Unclear Goals Evolved into Geopolitical Quagmires
8. The Necessity of Transparency, Accountability, and Congressional Oversight
9. List of Eight Specific Questions for the Executive Branch

Document Introduction

This document is a formal letter of inquiry from U.S. Senator Edward Markey to then-President Donald Trump, dated January 5, 2026. Its core issue is to examine and challenge the legality, justification, and strategic wisdom of the Trump administration's recent military actions against Venezuela—including the invasion of the country and the seizure of President Nicolás Maduro and his spouse. The letter begins by characterizing this action as "illegal, unjustified, and unwise," and pointedly notes that the President's statements about the U.S. "managing" Venezuela and its oil industry have raised serious concerns about the legal basis, true intentions, and lasting consequences of this military intervention undertaken without congressional authorization.

The main body of the document constructs a multi-layered, evidence-based framework of criticism. First, from the perspective of domestic constitutional order, the letter of inquiry accuses the executive branch of actions that exceed the fundamental constitutional limits of presidential power and may have deliberately evaded obligations under the War Powers Act by concealing invasion and regime change plans from Congress beforehand. Second, from the perspective of international law and diplomatic ethics, the action is accused of being a revival of "gunboat diplomacy." Its publicly stated motive—controlling Venezuela's oil resources to serve the interests of U.S. oil companies—is alleged to constitute a serious violation of Venezuela's sovereignty and the rules-based international order, being in principle no different from Saddam Hussein's 1990 invasion of Kuwait.

The document employs a profound method of historical analogy to strengthen the cautionary power of its argument. It cites the 1953 case where the U.S. orchestrated the overthrow of Iran's democratically elected government to protect Western oil interests, noting that such resource-driven intervention led to decades of instability and resentment. More recent lessons come from early 21st-century U.S. military actions: the document details how the lack of a credible "post-war plan" in the 2003 Iraq War triggered prolonged turmoil, immense human suffering, and endless military occupation, severely damaging U.S. credibility. The document warns that repeating such mistakes in Venezuela would entangle the U.S. in another costly, open-ended conflict and could exacerbate the region's humanitarian crisis and instability.

Based on the above analysis, the letter concludes by presenting a list of eight specific questions, demanding written responses from the President within a deadline. These questions systematically target key points of doubt: the transparency of decision-making (how to explain contradictions between statements to Congress and actual actions), post-action governance plans, mechanisms to prevent long-term intervention, respect for Venezuela's resource sovereignty, the specific influence of the oil factor in decision-making, measures to prevent regional instability, and whether administration officials engaged in improper communication with oil companies or Venezuelan opposition figures regarding oil interests. The entire document is stern in tone and rigorous in logic, aiming to use the power of congressional oversight to compel the executive branch to account for its radical foreign and military policies and urgently correct its course of action, which is perceived as steering the U.S. toward a disastrous path.

Key Chapter Title List

1. Illegal Military Intervention Without Congressional Authorization and the Resurgence of "Gunboat Diplomacy"
2. Misleading Congress and Evading Obligations Under the War Powers Act
3. The Core Motivation for Military Action: Controlling Venezuela's Oil Resources
4. Lack of a "Post-Action Plan" and Risks of Triggering Long-Term Instability and Humanitarian Crisis
5. Historical Lessons Warn: Regime Change Based on Oil Interests and Its Catastrophic Consequences
6. Departure from Democratic Self-Determination Principles and the Shadow of U.S. History Supporting Puppet Regimes
7. Precedents of Iraq and Afghanistan: How Invasions with Unclear Goals Evolved into Geopolitical Quagmires
8. The Necessity of Transparency, Accountability, and Congressional Oversight
9. List of Eight Specific Questions for the Executive Branch

Document Introduction

This document is a formal letter of inquiry from U.S. Senator Edward Markey to then-President Donald Trump, dated January 5, 2026. Its core issue is to examine and challenge the legality, justification, and strategic wisdom of the Trump administration's recent military actions against Venezuela—including the invasion of the country and the seizure of President Nicolás Maduro and his spouse. The letter begins by characterizing this action as "illegal, unjustified, and unwise," and pointedly notes that the President's statements about the U.S. "managing" Venezuela and its oil industry have raised serious concerns about the legal basis, true intentions, and lasting consequences of this military intervention undertaken without congressional authorization.

The main body of the document constructs a multi-layered, evidence-based framework of criticism. First, from the perspective of domestic constitutional order, the letter of inquiry accuses the executive branch of actions that exceed the fundamental constitutional limits of presidential power and may have deliberately evaded obligations under the War Powers Act by concealing invasion and regime change plans from Congress beforehand. Second, from the perspective of international law and diplomatic ethics, the action is accused of being a revival of "gunboat diplomacy." Its publicly stated motive—controlling Venezuela's oil resources to serve the interests of U.S. oil companies—is alleged to constitute a serious violation of Venezuela's sovereignty and the rules-based international order, being in principle no different from Saddam Hussein's 1990 invasion of Kuwait.

The document employs a profound method of historical analogy to strengthen the cautionary power of its argument. It cites the 1953 case where the U.S. orchestrated the overthrow of Iran's democratically elected government to protect Western oil interests, noting that such resource-driven intervention led to decades of instability and resentment. More recent lessons come from early 21st-century U.S. military actions: the document details how the lack of a credible "post-war plan" in the 2003 Iraq War triggered prolonged turmoil, immense human suffering, and endless military occupation, severely damaging U.S. credibility. The document warns that repeating such mistakes in Venezuela would entangle the U.S. in another costly, open-ended conflict and could exacerbate the region's humanitarian crisis and instability.

Based on the above analysis, the letter concludes by presenting a list of eight specific questions, demanding written responses from the President within a deadline. These questions systematically target key points of doubt: the transparency of decision-making (how to explain contradictions between statements to Congress and actual actions), post-action governance plans, mechanisms to prevent long-term intervention, respect for Venezuela's resource sovereignty, the specific influence of the oil factor in decision-making, measures to prevent regional instability, and whether administration officials engaged in improper communication with oil companies or Venezuelan opposition figures regarding oil interests. The entire document is stern in tone and rigorous in logic, aiming to use the power of congressional oversight to compel the executive branch to account for its radical foreign and military policies and urgently correct its course of action, which is perceived as steering the U.S. toward a disastrous path.