175 Comments
User's avatar
Darla Jones's avatar

"It should go without saying that the United States has precisely zero legal authority, under domestic or international law, to pressure or otherwise cajoke a foreign sovereign into doing “what we want” or risk invasion. " typo. you meant cajole

Mark Epping-Jordan's avatar

On the contrary, I think we should adopt Prof. Vladeck's new term "cajoke" which is a far better way to characterize Trump's stumbling, bumbling efforts to persuade people to do what he wants than "cajole."

Louise's avatar

I found myself thinking the same thing.

Darla Jones's avatar

I agree that cajoke has a great ring to it

Ellen Bender's avatar

Thanks for this. Off topic but did you see this piece in the Guardian that mentions your great grandfather and (uncle?) https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/jan/01/zohran-mamdani-new-york-mayor-antisemitism

Nate Spiller's avatar

His father.

Christopher Sheahen's avatar

I enjoy your reference to The West Wing, one of the great TV series.

But you make a good point which resonates with me. When I read the news this morning I asked myself if this is what our country has become? Does Trump want to be a bully on the world stage?

We the people are better than this. We should not forget that.

Thanks for your opinions.

Jan's avatar

He seems to believe (in his unsteady mind) that HE is in charge of the world. He is naming the next countries he will invade? HE released a convicted drug lord who was serving time! Is he expecting that drug lord to stop his business? HE wants Maduro's second in line to bow down to HIM? I am afraid of what may come next from this regime. I cannot call it an administration! It isn't!

J Thomas's avatar

77 million of our neighbors voted for this. We should remember that. They walk, many of them pardoned, among us and a lot of them are armed.

Ben's avatar

"Deeply thuggish." Exactly right. Kidnapping a foreign leader, spiriting him away to stand trial, claiming you will then "run" that leader's country, and all to obtain the country's natural resources -- that is what rogue nations do. I had not thought the United States a rogue nation until now.

Potter's avatar

We are not a rogue thug nation... we have to get rid of this administration... can't wait 3 years. In one year, so much damage. This is not us. Despair kills. I fear it.

Dan Bielaski's avatar

The Trump administration continues to act in disgusting, deplorable ways. When reading today's headline in The Hill, "Senate to vote next week to block Trump’s military action against Venezuela", I can only shake my head at Congress' continued fecklessness.

Potter's avatar

This has to play out; it happened on the weekend- of course. There has to be a tipping point. I am hoping for that with each more egregious act. I am giving them a chance.. this has to turn. Trump and Co. in the meantime are biting off a lot more than they can chew.. Venezuela is a mess we cannot deal with without sending troops. Also there is a limit to what even the MAGA crowd here will go along with. If the weather was not so damn cold people would still be out.

Jan's avatar

It's a little late now don't you think? Congress and the Senate (republican run) can stay on their extended vacations!

Potter's avatar

However late it is Congress still has to act.

User's avatar
Comment deleted
Jan 4
Comment deleted
Potter's avatar

They will-- as I said this just happened before the weekend...the New Year's holiday!

J Thomas's avatar

And do what? Undo the coronation?

Potter's avatar

Start impeachment.. begin a shadow government or in a Democratic caucus. Televise it. Use it as campaign material... getting ready. maybe people who have no hope or confidence will gain some.

Jan's avatar

And what do we do if they don't? They don't appear to be inclined to do a damn thing about this trump regime trying to take over the world! There was an article that said he will buy Greenland? With what money? We can't afford to feed our people but he's going to buy another country? He just took over Venezuela! How do we pay for that? Congress is useless at this point! I hope we are "allowed" to have our midterm elections. I do worry about the manipulation that might happen with trump and his regime and, of course, Musk has his fingers in there too!

Potter's avatar

First- Trump cannot take over the world. NO way.

This is ALL ABOUT WHAT WE DO ABOUT THIS. .. and not despairing. This is all about the power we gave them. We need to take it away.

If you read today's Heather Cox Richardson she gives the answer about money. Money stolen and money schemes.

This is ALL ABOUT WHAT WE DO ABOUT THIS. Securing the election.

We will have our midterm elections. We have agency. It's not all about what they do. It's also, maybe even more, about what we do.

WE suppot the parts of the resistance working on this-and spreading information. The last election this past year was an indication that people are getting what is at stake.

Plus- okay- prices are high too... But people are more offended about losing the country they took for granted, that they love. They cannot ignore THIS on and on thinking it will pass.

This is ALL ABOUT WHAT WE DO ABOUT THIS. Sorry for repeating.

Don't despair because if people despair we lose the fight. We have no choice but to depend on voting them out- securing the election 2026 to at least put a stop to this. In 2026 with a new Congress we can go on the offensive with impeachment hearings....

Work with people that are working towards this.

Jan's avatar

Exactly! WE are not a rogue thug nation, but our current administration is! Trump is doing this for the oil in Venezuela! If he cares so much about drug smuggling, why did he release the drug lord that was already serving time in our prison? This administration needs to be gone. So much has been done in one long year and still 3 more to go? When will our country step up and remove this trump regime?

celeste k.'s avatar

It is NOT us, and I want this government stopped. We really do have to get rid of this current administration. The only recourse I see is the protection of our elections and their integrity, and getting massive numbers of voters to the polls to vote. In the meantime, we need to get Congress to get the lead out and do their jobs. Call, write or show up to their offices, whatever it takes. We can't waste any time.

Carole's avatar

And our nation is NOT A ROGUE NATION, we just (HA) have a rogue regime leading(?) it

Jan's avatar

That is true! The trump regime is the rogue! They must go just as he made Maduro go!

Ben's avatar

The distinction isn't valid. The so-called “Trump regime” is the government of our country. That government speaks for us. So Trump speaks for us. What he does, he does in our name. You can't just write him off as if he were masquerading as the president, some sort of occupying force. He really is the president, more’s the pity. So if he causes us to act as a rogue nation, then we are the ones acting that way.

Jan's avatar

He does not represent what America has always stood for! He represents himself and the publicity and recognition that he craves so much! He does not represent all the people, he represents his MAGA core only!

Roxanna Springer's avatar

He swore, an oath as did the members of Congress and the judiciary, to preserve the Constitution. He and they are now breakers of that oath.

Jack Jordan's avatar

It's well worth recalling what Chief Justice Marshall and SCOTUS highlighted in Marbury v. Madison. “The government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men.”

"The constitution is" necessarily the "superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means." So "the constitution is to be considered, in court, as a paramount law," and "courts" cannot "close their eyes on the constitution, and see only [some other purported] law." "Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void."

Any "act of the legislature" (any purported law purportedly granting the President unconstitutional powers) "repugnant to the constitution, is void." So any "act of" any other purported public servant "repugnant to the constitution, is void." Any purported doctrine (e.g., the so-called Monroe Doctrine) by which the President usurps powers "repugnant to the constitution, is void."

Any other purported theory or "doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions. It would declare that an act, which, according to the principles and theory of our government, is entirely void; is yet, in practice, completely obligatory."

Trump and the people supporting and using him are rogues. We the People have the power to do something about what they're doing. We are not a rogue nation.

J Thomas's avatar

77 million people voted for the turd who tried to overthrow the republic. To say that the USA is a rogue nation is an understatement.

Frederick J Frahm's avatar

Sorry to point out that you are making a distinction without a difference here.

Jack Jordan's avatar

The US is not a rogue nation. Our nation is the victim of a gallery of rogues. They constantly attack and undermine our Constitution and violate their own oaths to "preserve, protect and defend [our] Constitution" (Article II) and to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" (5 U.S.C. 3331).

They constantly work to establish a government of men and not of laws. That is the vicious opposite of the plain text and plain purpose of our Constitution. As Chief Justice Marshall and SCOTUS highlighted for the nation in 1803 in Marbury v. Madison, “The government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men.” In 1988, Justice Scalia did a decent job of emphasizing the same in his dissent in Morrison v. Olson.

The simple, self-evident truth is that "We the People" to "promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves" emphatically vested unitary power to start a war (in the manner in which Trump is doing so) only in our directly-elected representatives in Congress (not the indirectly-elected President).

"We the People" expressly and emphatically "vested in a Congress of the United States" absolutely "All legislative Powers" that were "granted" by our Constitution. The People expressly and emphatically delegated the power to involve us in a war (in the manner in which Trump is doing so) only to our representatives in Congress. We expressly emphasized that "All legislative Powers" included all powers "To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water."

The powers to "grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water" were identified explicitly by the People because those power implicitly had the power to involve the People in a war. An illegal war obviously is one of the fastest, harshest ways for people to "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

In our original Constitution, the People also limited the primary war powers of even Congress to two years. Immediately after the People vested in Congress the power to start a war, the People gave Congress the power (and expressly limited Congress’s power) “To raise and support Armies.” The People emphasized that “no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years.” That provision highlights that the People expected Congress to use the power of the purse to protect us from unconstitutional wars, e.g., wars started or perpetuated by the President in violation of our Constitution.

Trump and the people using and supporting him are trying to turn the apex of power (established by our Constitution) on its head. In 1926 in Myers v. United States (which is much discussed these days, including in connection with Trump v. Slaughter (currently being considered by SCOTUS), Chief Justice Taft (who previously was the President, and before that he was the Governor of the Philippines and Cuba) authored the opinion for SCOTUS, which included the following:

"To assume that the only source of the power to remove is the power to appoint is to put the pyramid on its apex; whereas you put the pyramid on its base when you say that the power to remove is part of [ ] the 'executive power,' [which is expressly and specifically limited by the duty] to 'take care that the laws be faithfully executed,' a mandate of tremendous significance and import."

The 1979 opinion of SCOTUS in Nevada v. Hall also included the following relevant highlight about the structure of power that our Constitution overturned:

"Since the King was at the apex of the feudal pyramid, there was no higher court in which he could be sued. The King’s immunity rested primarily on the structure of the feudal system and secondarily on a fiction that the King could do no wrong."

J Thomas's avatar

Trump once made reference to 💩 hole countries. He’s turned the USA into one.

Carole's avatar

He is a ginormous pile of turds in the Oval Office… there’s a difference

Peter's avatar

It's not what rogue nations do, it's what rogue super powers do. Witness Russia. Soon, witness China.

jeff ingram's avatar

Even if there is not a majority of anti-Trump + pro-Congress-war-power members in the House and the Senate, are there not at least enough to form a constitutional caucus to try to condemn the Venezuela law-breaking by President Demento?

Jan's avatar

They are forced to bow down to the trump regime. I haven't quite figured out why, but it certainly seems to be what is happening!

Priscilla Phelps's avatar

Prof. Vladeck: Why is there no audio on your post? Please review for those of us who are visually impaired followers. Thank you.

Ma's avatar

I’m getting no audio on about 7 substacks. Talked to an AI helper. It has been reported to technical team. Welcome to the third world Russian USA.

David Glaser's avatar

I'm having issues with text to speech on every article since last week. Nothing loads. I can't find a resolution either.

Steve's avatar

Two corollary issues which are not legal issues per se, but clearly loom over the analysis. First is the almost total incoherence of Trump’s statement this morning, his chaotic thought pattern which seemed to spontaneously learch into the statement that we were doing this for oil, coupled with his physical condition, including his speech pattern and listing heavily to his left , raise the question whether Trump has lost the capacity to carry out the duties of the Presidency. Second is the deepening crisis posed by the White House’s continued failure to release the Epstein files and the ever increasing implication that the White House is terrified about what lurks in the doc and its desperation to divert attention from the matter.

Lance Khrome's avatar

Here's the basic argument, stripped down to its essentials: Venezuela was stealing Venezuelan oil, and now "we" are going to steal it back...QED.

Andrew Fischer's avatar

Venezuela was not stealing our oil: it was sharing its oil with Cuba. That is a mortal sin to Marc Rubio, that son of Cuban refugee Aristocracy. We are taking Venezuela’s oil so that the upstart Cubans who dare to challenge United States hegemony will remain economically suffocated. Next will be the other populist Latin American states that dare challenge Trump’s right wing friends.

Emily Kirk's avatar

I agree. But then isn’t it clear that Steve’s question number 1 is proven to be false by question number 4? Why is anyone giving credence to using military in aid of executing an arrest warrant when Trump says we are taking the oil and running the country in the same presser?

Steven Tvardek's avatar

Is he the legitimate head of a sovereign government? I don’t think so. He heads a gang that controls Venezuela soil. No one in the Western world thinks he was a legitimate Head of State.

Second if his actions are immune because he is a Head of State or was acting for a government, did this apply to Nuremberg trials? No.

You don’t have to love or even support Trump to be fair in assessing the situation. It can go south from here but let’s be fair at this point.

Kay Anderson's avatar

Most of the crimes Maduro is alleged to have committed occurred during the time after his first (legitimate) election when he was universally acknowledged as Venezuela's prez. So, facts will show he was the internationally recognized head of state up until the 2019 election.

Re: Nuremberg trials – the alleged crimes : Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes were adjudicated pursuant to the London Charter, which established the International Military Tribunal (IMT) to prosecute major war criminals. Head of state immunity does not generally apply for crimes against humanity at international tribunals like the ICC, thanks to the Rome Statute, which explicitly states official capacity isn't a bar to accountability.

John Mitchell's avatar

Not to mention that Nazi Germany had waged war on many nations before some of its officials were tried at the Nuremberg trials.

RepairRestoreSafeguard's avatar

Even the Rome Statute adds an artificial hegemony to international law. In 2022 Russia massed troops on Ukraine's border claiming they were conducting exercises then struck without declaring war, the crime of aggression. But prosecuting aggression requires the aggressor's permission. Mr. Trump has drawn from Mr. Putin's manual.

Steven Tvardek's avatar

See Rubenfeld in Free Press on legal issues. I think TDS makes people stretch to defend Maduro. The EU doesn’t recognize Maduro so who in the “West” supports him? If you go far enough East, you end up West 😊.

Kay Anderson's avatar

Who defended Maduro?

Steve Vladeck's avatar

Not sure in what universe you could reasonably read this post as "defend[ing] Maduro," but you do you.

Steven Tvardek's avatar

Defending his right to remain free in Venezuela. If you oppose him being arrested, you defend him remaining free and in power. Seems like a normal universe to me.

Steve Vladeck's avatar

Just because I don't think the United States had the legal authority (or that it was a good idea for it) to use military force to invade a foreign sovereign's territory and arrest him does not mean that I think he should "remain[] free and in power." There's a world of daylight between "we shouldn't be unlawfully invading countries to depose bad leaders" and "those leaders should remain in power." If you can't see the logical fallacy in reading my post as you do, well, that's on you.

John Russell's avatar

"No one in the Western world thinks he was a legitimate Head of State."

Not true. Many countries in the Western world and the Americas consider Maduro the legitimate Head of State. Maduro's government holds Venezuela's seat in the UN. US Vice President Kamala Harris even congratulated him for the victory he proclaimed in 2024. Maduro & Chavez before him were universally recognized, even after the US tried to coup Chavez.

Steven Tvardek's avatar

You cite the Biden Admin and in particular the intellectual giant Harris as your anchor? Wow, glad you are not on my side!

Steve Vladeck's avatar

As the post to which you are purportedly responding notes, the first Trump administration *also* recognized Maduro as the legitimate head of state until 2019, but why should facts matter?

Steven Tvardek's avatar

When you have an agenda, you can forget the last 6 years, the election, and all the crime and abuses. Look at the streets of Venezuela and NYC and the celebration. If he went in while recognizing his legitimacy then we have a different discussion. Once recognized=always recognized? Re read my original post. I am referring to Now!

Steve Vladeck's avatar

Maybe re-read *my* original post, to which you were supposedly responding. That post carefully distinguishes between the pre-2019 period (during which the Obama and Trump administrations) *did* recognize Maduro, and the post-2019 period. The point is not "once recognized = always recognized"; it's that the recognition question is much harder here than it was in Noriega or other cases, especially because some of the charges in the indictment cover pre-2019 conduct. That's the relevant question for head-of-state immunity, not what's true now in 2026.

Steven Tvardek's avatar

Are pre-2019 crimes absolved or are they enforceable after his “immunity” expires?

Alex Lindvall's avatar

This was excellent, Steve

Vijaya Venkatesan's avatar

Do Americans have the memory span of a goldfish? What about Reagan and Grenada without even the excuse of drugs.

Michael Guenon's avatar

“Rescuing” medical school students.

Martyn Roetter's avatar

An obvious question perhaps. But why should foreign military not feel justified to invade the US and abduct US officials and politicians their country regards as criminals to put them on trial in their courts? Assuming they think they are capable

.

The NLRG's avatar

nuclear escalation

Jan's avatar

That might be the worst outcome of all of this trump regime crap!

The NLRG's avatar

unlikely as venezuela does not have nuclear weapons

Cathy R's avatar

We have the world's largest military. Who would take the chance?

Jan's avatar

Our military is being run by a talk show host!

Jan's avatar

As the old saying goes, all is fair in love and war! Trump is putting us at war with South America!

VTGS's avatar

This Trump regime believes Might Makes Right and that as the world’s superpower they need not worry about other countries trying to retaliate. Cf Hegseth and his extremely embarrassing “FAFO” line which he threw at the assembled generals last year and alluded to again at yesterday’s ghastly press. That simple.

Mark Siegel's avatar

I love the West Wing as much as the next guy. But the US has a long and illustrious history of meddling in other countries, from orchestrating coups, assassinations and invasions. The US has been "deeply thuggish" for quite a while, and, sadly, not just part of the "league of ordinary nations," but more aptly a league of thuggish nations.

Carole's avatar

I’m not much of a historian~ like where did we meddle? I’ve always imagined our involvement being a part of alliances maybe I don’t want to know -sigh

Mark Siegel's avatar

Sorry, there's been so much meddling by the US into other countries that I can't possibly mention them all. I'm most familiar with Iran and Central and South America, but there's many other places where the US meddled. But if you're interested you could start with this Wikipedia page on "US involvement in regime change." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change

Carole's avatar

I knew I shouldn’t but …

According to one study, the U.S. performed at least 81 overt and covert known interventions in foreign elections from 1946 to 2000.[6] According to another study, the U.S. engaged in 64 covert and six overt attempts at regime change during the Cold War.[7] Of course the footnotes are useless in this paste but …😢

Claire Battle's avatar

Indonesia another big one

Gwendolyn McEwen's avatar

What are the chances the FBI played a central role in this thuggery, given that the military has recently been reminded it must not follow illegal orders?

Michael Halliburton's avatar

Well, it sounds like you are learning what I learned watching the Vietnam War on television as a kid. That you have believed in the special status of the United States among nations for this long is remarkable and troubling.

“What has shaken me is not that you lied to me, but that I no longer believe you.”

― Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil

Rain Robinson's avatar

Excellent legal analysis. What a shame our US has been hijacked by authoritarians who aim to copy the unlawful actions of dictatorships.