Let me be unambiguous at the outset: I do not support narco-trafficking, and I do not support Nicolás Maduro or the corruption of his regime. Opposition to criminality and authoritarianism, however, does not justify the abandonment of international law, constitutional governance, or the most basic principles of sovereignty.
The United States used military force inside another sovereign country, removed its head of state, and did so without authorization from Congress and without even notifying congressional leadership, including members of the president’s own party. That action constitutes a grave violation of international law and a serious breach of the constitutional balance of powers in the United States.
Sovereignty is not conditional on a leader’s moral standing. It is a foundational principle of the international system precisely because allowing powerful states to decide unilaterally which governments deserve protection leads to instability, retaliation, and perpetual conflict. The use of force to seize a foreign leader is not law enforcement; it is regime change by military means.
Equally troubling is the domestic constitutional dimension. The President of the United States is not an imperial executive and not a king. Even in matters of national security, the Constitution requires consultation, notification, and accountability. Congress was sidelined. The American people were sidelined. This is not how a constitutional republic wages force abroad.
Statements attributed to senior defense officials suggesting that the United States can act “wherever it wants” are deeply alarming. That logic is historically dangerous. Power without constraint is not strength; it is the very condition that undermines the legitimacy and safety of a nation. As an American, I find such assertions profoundly disturbing.
Far from making the world more secure, this action increases global instability. It invites retaliation, emboldens rivals, weakens international norms, and places American service members and civilians at greater risk worldwide. History teaches us that disregard for law does not deter violence — it multiplies it.
Respect for the presidency does not require silence. Loyalty to the Constitution demands opposition when its core principles are violated. I reject the notion that constitutional government and international law are inconveniences to be brushed aside. Diplomacy matters. Law matters. Process matters.
The President of the United States holds an office that deserves respect. But respect for the office does not mean acquiescence to actions that erode the constitutional order and normalize unilateral force. Power must be exercised responsibly, lawfully, and with restraint.
I urge the president to reconsider the course now set, to engage Congress as required, and to reaffirm that the United States remains a nation governed by law rather than by will. If that restraint is not forthcoming, then Congress — and the international institutions committed to sovereignty and the rule of law — must assert themselves.
Robert Milstein is an Oak Park resident and a former village trustee.
