Caffeinated Politics

This news story did not make the headlines it deserved. There is more to what you are about to read than just a briefing about U.S. military strikes near Venezuela. More deeply disturbing is the willful ripping apart of what is perhaps one of the longest and most bipartisan vital centers of our shared interests on Capitol Hill.

In a moment that crystallizes an ever-growing concern over even deeper and more partisan politicization of intelligence, Virginia Senator Mark Warner, who serves as the vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, strongly condemned the Donald Trump administration for holding a classified briefing on U.S. military strikes near Venezuela that excluded Democratic lawmakers. This is simply outside the bounds of acceptable behavior, even when considering who sits in the Oval Office. The briefing, which reportedly detailed strikes on alleged drug-trafficking boats in the Caribbean, was shared only with Republican senators—a move Warner correctly called “indefensible and dangerous.” (Though drugs are not the root cause for the belligerent behavior from the U.S. government at this time. The Wall Street Journal has summed up this Trump lunacy by writing, “In his second term, Trump is seeking to dominate the Americas with a new “Donroe Doctrine”)

Warner’s frustration is not just procedural or aimed to check a mark for Democrats. No, far from it, as his concern is constitutional. The Senate Intelligence Committee, particularly the bipartisan “Gang of Eight,” exists to ensure that decisions involving covert operations and military force are subject to rigorous, cross-party oversight. By sidelining half the committee, the administration undermined the very structure designed to prevent unilateral executive action in matters of war and peace.

In his statement, Warner emphasized that “decisions about the use of American military force are not campaign strategy sessions, and they are not the private property of one political party.” He warned that treating them as such “erodes our national security” and violates Congress’s constitutional duty.

This episode fits a broader pattern of partisan maneuvering in foreign policy. While the administration framed the strikes as part of a crackdown on drug trafficking (which it is not), Warner and other Democrats questioned both the legality and strategic clarity of the operation. Oklahoma Congressman Jason Crow, a former Army officer, noted that the briefing lacked any coherent strategy or endgame, calling it a “tactical brief” devoid of meaningful oversight.

What’s at stake here is more than just one briefing. It’s the integrity of a system that has historically relied on bipartisan trust to navigate the murky waters of international conflict. I well understand that has no meaning to Trump or his base that sit each evening for endless hours of drivel from Fox News and other right-wing nutty networks. But for the majority of the nation there is an understanding that the Intelligence Committee has long been a rare space where ideology takes a back seat to national interest.

By excluding Democrats, the Trump administration risks further turning intelligence into a partisan tool—one that could distort public understanding and weaken institutional checks on executive power. OH WAIT! THAT IS the desired endgame. Foolish me.

Warner’s indignation and this news story deserved more attention as it strikes at an essential aspect of sound governing at the federal level. This is not just the concern of nerds who follow the news and write a blog column. In a time of global instability, the American public deserves a government that treats intelligence as a shared responsibility, not a partisan weapon.