The 'Law Enforcement' Rationale for Invading Venezuela Is an Open-Ended License for War
If an indictment is enough to justify military action, why bother seeking congressional approval?
If an indictment is enough to justify military action, why bother seeking congressional approval?
Every president from 1881 to 1901 successfully defended presidential at-will removal power.
Here as elsewhere, lethargy in the legislature is no way to counter execss energy in the executive.
Maduro is a brutal dictator who is getting what he deserves. But Trump's actions are still illegal, because lacking proper congressional authorization. Whether they result in a beneficial regime change in Venezuela remains to be seen.
The president asserted broad powers to deport people, impose tariffs, and deploy the National Guard based on his own unilateral determinations.
An opportunity to work at the nation's leading libertarian think tank.
Presidents, legislators, and police officers were desperate to blame anyone but themselves.
Is unfettered majority rule actually a good idea for the left to embrace?
The justices suggested the president is misinterpreting "the regular forces," a key phrase in the statute on which he is relying.
As one of Mamdani's top advisers, Khan has been making a list of all the "authorities that the mayor can unilaterally deploy."
A recent White House proclamation further expands his previous travel bans, to the point of barring nearly all legal migration from some 40 countries. Legally, it further underscores that Trump is claiming virtually unlimited executive power to restrict immigration,a claim that runs afoul of the nondelegation doctrine.
The Supreme Court should take a page from its own history.
Why the Executive Power Vesting clause of Article II compels a holding that the President has the power to remove Federal Trade Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter.
Plus: It's the final day of Reason's webathon.
On the eve of Trump v. Slaughter, the D.C. Circuit offers a way to distinguish Humphrey's Executor.
NRO's Andrew McCarthy on why strike on defenseless survivors of strike on drug boat was "at best, a war crime under federal law."
Now, under Johnson's leadership, the House has changed its rules to make it even harder for lawmakers to signal their opposition to Trump's tariffs.
Blowing up boats won’t stop drugs—but it could sink Trump.
Sen. Rand Paul explains why he wants the Epstein files released, lays out his case against Trump’s tariffs and military strikes in Venezuela, and argues that he and Rep. Thomas Massie are the last voices in Congress still committed to libertarian ideals.
Trump's decision to reduce the tariffs on Swiss goods came just days after a Swiss delegation lavished the president with a variety of expensive gifts.
They say a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich. But failing to get indictments has been a hallmark of the second Trump administration.
The Trump administration's claims that illegal migration and drug smuggling qualify as an "invasion" or a "predatory incursion" under the Alien Enemies Act go against the major questions doctrine.
For the justices, the question is just how much deference the president deserves.
Plus: Outrage at Heritage, air traffic might get throttled, and more...
Trade deficits are not a "national emergency," and the president's import taxes won’t reduce them.
The former vice president liked being compared to the supervillain as a joke. But he had seriously villainous effects on millions of people in real life.
Learning Resources v. Trump will test both executive power and judicial fidelity.
"The Trump Administration's Department of War gave me an ultimatum: call up your troops, or we will," Gov. J.B. Pritzker said.
The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments in November on whether Trump's use of tariffs is constitutional.
As of mid-2025, there were roughly 50 simultaneous national emergencies in force.
The president bet that no one would stop him from land attacks in Venezuela. And Congress hasn’t given him any reason to think otherwise.
Long-ago debates about executive authority are not as distant as they might initially seem.
The decision “erodes core constitutional principles, including sovereign States’ control over their States’ militias and the people’s First Amendment rights,” Judge Susan P. Graber warned in her dissent.
The potential for deadly error underlines the lawlessness of the president’s bloodthirsty anti-drug strategy.
Will the Supreme Court grant Trump the overwhelming judicial deference he demands?
Plus: the “No Kings” protests, Trump pays troop salaries during government shutdown, and the continued bombing of drug boats in Venezuela
The correct answer is: Yes, even when they are also regulations. Whether the Court agrees could determine the future of presidential power.
The Court of Appeals unanimously refused to stay a trial court ruling against Trump, signaling the judges believe his use of the Guard is illegal.
Until now, the president concedes, interdiction has been "totally ineffective." Blowing up drug boats won't change that reality.
This is the second lawsuit challenging the policy, which is both illegal and likely to cause great harm if allowed to stand.
A guest post by Joshua Braver and John Dehn.
If the courts try to enforce legal limits on the president's military deployments, he can resort to an alarmingly broad statute that gives him more discretion.
Federal troops are also ill-suited to handle local policing issues.
As Illinois resists the federal immigration blitz, the Trump administration ups the ante on authoritarian rhetoric.
The federal government can't even pass a budget. What's it doing buying a mine?
Shadowy deals and unilateral powers created Florida's notorious immigration detention camp.
Help Reason push back with more of the fact-based reporting we do best. Your support means more reporters, more investigations, and more coverage.
Make a donation today! No thanksEvery dollar I give helps to fund more journalists, more videos, and more amazing stories that celebrate liberty.
Yes! I want to put my money where your mouth is! Not interestedSo much of the media tries telling you what to think. Support journalism that helps you to think for yourself.
I’ll donate to Reason right now! No thanksPush back against misleading media lies and bad ideas. Support Reason’s journalism today.
My donation today will help Reason push back! Not todayBack journalism committed to transparency, independence, and intellectual honesty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges central planning, big government overreach, and creeping socialism.
Yes, I’ll support Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that exposes bad economics, failed policies, and threats to open markets.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksBack independent media that examines the real-world consequences of socialist policies.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges government overreach with rational analysis and clear reasoning.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges centralized power and defends individual liberty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksYour support helps expose the real-world costs of socialist policy proposals—and highlight better alternatives.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksDonate today to fuel reporting that exposes the real costs of heavy-handed government.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks