The Erosion of Presidential Accountability: Trump’s Expanding Unilateral Power and the Future of US Foreign Policy

Eighty-three lives. That’s the estimated death toll from over twenty U.S. military strikes authorized by former President Trump against alleged drug-trafficking boats off the coast of Venezuela – strikes conducted without a clear legal justification, congressional authorization, or conclusive evidence linking those killed to criminal activity. This isn’t an isolated incident; it’s a chilling demonstration of a rapidly expanding executive power, and a harbinger of potential instability in U.S. foreign policy, even as the current administration navigates a complex geopolitical landscape.

Beyond Venezuela: A Pattern of Unilateral Action

The strikes against Venezuela are merely the most visible example of a broader trend. Since retaking office, Trump has authorized military actions in Iran, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen, often bypassing traditional checks and balances. He’s even flirted with deploying the military domestically, labeling American cities “war zones” – a dangerous precedent that blurs the lines between civilian law enforcement and military intervention. This pattern isn’t about ending wars, it’s about creating them, fueled by a belief that the President alone can define an emergency and authorize the use of force.

The pardon of former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernández, convicted of large-scale drug trafficking, adds another layer of complexity. As Senator Bill Cassidy rightly questioned, “Why would we pardon this guy and then go after Maduro for running drugs into the United States?” This apparent hypocrisy underscores a disturbing willingness to selectively apply the law, prioritizing political expediency over consistent principles. The implications for international relations are significant, eroding trust in U.S. leadership and potentially encouraging retaliatory actions from other nations.

The “Trump Doctrine” and the Normalization of Extrajudicial Force

Is this the “Trump Doctrine” in action? A doctrine seemingly based on the assertion of unchecked presidential authority and a disregard for international law? Legal scholars, like Ryan Goodman, a former Pentagon lawyer, argue that even under the laws of armed conflict, these actions constitute murder, as they target civilians in the absence of a declared war. The focus on the tragic fate of those left adrift after the September strike, while important, risks obscuring the larger outrage: the systematic use of lethal force without due process or accountability.

This normalization of extrajudicial force presents a long-term threat to the rule of law, both domestically and internationally. If a President can unilaterally authorize deadly strikes based on unsubstantiated claims, what prevents future administrations from expanding this power even further? The potential for abuse is immense, particularly in regions already destabilized by conflict and political unrest. The Council on Foreign Relations provides a detailed analysis of the historical context and legal limitations surrounding the use of military force by the U.S. President.

The Erosion of Congressional Oversight

Crucially, this expansion of executive power is occurring alongside a weakening of congressional oversight. The lack of robust debate and authorization for these military actions sets a dangerous precedent, effectively sidelining the legislative branch and concentrating power in the hands of the executive. This isn’t simply a matter of political disagreement; it’s a fundamental challenge to the constitutional separation of powers.

The Image Problem: Strength vs. Reality

The dissonance between Trump’s carefully cultivated image of strength and vigor and the increasingly visible signs of age and diminished capacity is becoming impossible to ignore. The now-iconic images of him dozing off during a cabinet meeting, while Secretary of State Marco Rubio lauded his “transformational” foreign policy, are a stark reminder of the gap between perception and reality. This contradiction poses a significant political risk, potentially undermining his base of support and fueling doubts about his ability to lead.

Will the contradictions become too glaring to sustain? As Trump approaches eighty, the chasm between his self-proclaimed strength and his physical reality will only widen. While surrounded by loyalists like Rubio, who are seemingly willing to endorse any action, the growing unease within some segments of the Republican party – those hesitant to support unauthorized and potentially illegal military actions – suggests a potential breaking point.

Looking Ahead: A Future of Unpredictability?

The long-term consequences of this unchecked presidential power are profound. We are entering an era where the U.S. may be more likely to engage in unilateral military interventions, driven by the whims of a single individual rather than a carefully considered national strategy. This increases the risk of escalation, miscalculation, and unintended consequences. The potential for a “Battle of the Caribbean,” as darkly joked about by some observers, is not merely a fanciful scenario, but a plausible outcome if this trend continues.

What are your predictions for the future of U.S. foreign policy under these conditions? Share your thoughts in the comments below!