US Rep. Ro Khanna on Friday demanded urgent congressional action to avert “another endless, regime-change war” amid reports that President Donald Trump is weighing military strikes inside Venezuela.

Such strikes, warned Khanna (D-Calif.), would be “blatantly unconstitutional.”

“The United States Congress must speak up and stop this,” Khanna said in a video posted to social media. “No president, according to the Constitution, has the authority to strike another country without Congress’ approval. And the American people have voted against regime change and endless wars.”

Watch:

Khanna’s remarks came in response to reporting by the Miami Herald and the Wall Street Journal on internal Trump administration discussions regarding possible airstrike targets inside Venezuela.

The Herald reported early Friday that the administration “has made the decision to attack military installations inside Venezuela and the strikes could come at any moment.” The Journal, in a story published Thursday, was more reserved, reporting that the administration “has identified targets in Venezuela that include military facilities used to smuggle drugs,” but adding that “the president hasn’t made a final decision on ordering land strikes.”

Citing unnamed US officials familiar with the matter, the Journal reported that “the targets would send a clear message to Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro that it is time to step down.”

Following the reports, the White House denied that Trump has finalized plans for a military strike on Venezuela. Trump himself told reporters aboard Air Force One on Friday that he has not made a final decision, signaling his belief he has the authority to do so if he chooses.

Last week, the president said publicly that land strikes are “going to be next” following his illegal, deadly strikes on boats in waters off Central and South America.

Trump has said he would not seek approval from Congress before attacking Venezuela directly.

“The American people oppose being dragged into yet another endless war, this time in Venezuela, and our constitutional order demands deliberation by the U.S. Congress—period.”

A potentially imminent, unauthorized US attack on Venezuela and the administration’s accelerating military buildup in the Caribbean have thus far drawn vocal opposition from just a fraction of the lawmakers on Capitol Hill, currently embroiled in a shutdown fight.

Just three senators—Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), and Adam Schiff (D-Calif.)—are listed as official backers of a resolution aimed at preventing Trump from attacking Venezuela without congressional authorization. Other senators, including Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), have spoken out against Trump’s belligerence toward Venezuela.

“Trump is illegally threatening war with Venezuela—after killing more than 50 people in unauthorized strikes at sea,” Sanders wrote in a social media post on Friday. “The Constitution is clear: Only Congress can declare war. Congress must defend the law and end Trump’s militarism.”

Dylan Williams, vice president of government affairs at the Center for International Policy, wrote Friday that “most Americans oppose overthrowing Venezuela’s leaders by force—and an even larger majority oppose invading.”

“Call your senators and tell them to vote for S.J.Res.90 to block Trump’s unauthorized use of military force,” Williams added. “The Capitol switchboard can connect you to your senators’ offices at 202-224-3121.”

A similar resolution led by Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.) in the US House has just over 30 cosponsors.

Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.) announced his support for the House resolution on Thursday, saying in a statement that “Trump does not have the legal authority to launch military strikes inside Venezuela without a specific authorization by Congress.”

“I am deeply troubled by reports that suggest this administration believes otherwise,” said Neguse. “Any unilateral directive to send Americans into war is not only reckless, but illegal and an affront to the House of Representatives’ powers under Article I of our Constitution.”

“The American people oppose being dragged into yet another endless war, this time in Venezuela, and our constitutional order demands deliberation by the U.S. Congress—period,” Neguse added.

A federal judge on Friday gave a thumbs-down to President Donald Trump's directive requiring federal voter registration forms to include a requirement to provide proof-of-citizenship paperwork.

According to PBS News, "U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly in Washington, D.C., sided with Democratic and civil rights groups that sued the Trump administration over his executive order to overhaul U.S. elections," determining that this order would violate the constitutional separation of powers because the executive branch doesn't have power over election administration.

“Because our Constitution assigns responsibility for election regulation to the States and to Congress, this Court holds that the President lacks the authority to direct such changes,” wrote Kollar-Kotelly, who has been appointed to various federal judgeships under former Presidents Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton.

Trump's order would have been carried out by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission. But under the ruling, they are permanently blocked from making such a change to federal voter registration forms.

Over the years, the president has tried to expand his crusade against immigrants to a number of facets of government administration.

He also triggered a massive controversy in his first term by seeking to add a citizenship question to the U.S. Census, despite warnings from experts that this would reduce response rates and make census data less accurate; the Supreme Court ultimately prohibited this change. And this week, Trump's Education Department issued guidance barring any employees of public service sector organizations that are found to be involved in illegal activity, including unauthorized immigration, from receiving student loan forgiveness.

Officials in Evanston, Illinois, are accusing federal immigration officials of “deliberately causing chaos” in their city during a Friday operation that led to angry protests from local residents.

As reported by Fox 32 Chicago, Evanston Mayor Daniel Biss and other local leaders held a news conference on Friday afternoon to denounce actions earlier in the day by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials.

“Our message for ICE is simple: Get the hell out of Evanston,” Biss said during the conference.

In a social media post ahead of the press conference, Biss, who is currently a candidate for US Senate, described the agents’ actions as “monstrous” and vowed that he would “continue to track the movement of federal agents in and around Evanston and ensure that the Evanston Police Department is responding in the appropriate fashion.”

As of this writing, it is unclear how the incident involving the immigration officials in Evanston began, although witness Jose Marin told local publication Evanston Now that agents on Friday morning had deliberately caused a car crash in the area near the Chute Elementary School, and then proceeded to detain the vehicle’s passengers.

Videos taken after the crash posted by Chicago Tribune investigative reporter Gregory Royal Pratt and by Evanston Now reporter Matthew Eadie show several people in the area angrily confronting law enforcement officials as they were in the process of detaining the passengers.

The operation in Evanston came on the same day that Bellingcat published a report documenting what has been described as “a pattern of extreme brutality” being carried out by immigration enforcement officials in Illinois.

Specifically, the publication examined social media videos of immigration enforcement actions taken between October 9 to October 27, and found “multiple examples of force and riot control weapons being used” in apparent violation of a judge’s temporary restraining order that banned such weapons except in cases where federal officers are in immediate danger.

“In total, we found seven [instances] that appeared to show the use of riot control weapons when there was seemingly no apparent immediate threat by protesters and no audible warnings given,” Bellingcat reported. “Nineteen showed use of force, such as tackling people to the ground when they were not visibly resisting. Another seven showed agents ordering or threatening people to leave public places. Some of the events identified showed incidents that appeared to fall into more than one of these categories.”