By Edidiong Anii-Bassey
The U.S. Senate on Thursday advanced a resolution aimed at limiting President Donald Trump’s ability to carry out additional military attacks against Venezuela, signaling rare bipartisan concern over the administration’s expanding use of force in the Western Hemisphere and its growing disregard for congressional oversight.
The war powers resolution cleared a procedural hurdle by a 52–47 vote, with Democrats joined by five Republicans, setting the stage for a final vote in the coming days. While the measure is unlikely to become law — it would still need to pass the House and be signed by Trump — its advancement marked a notable expression of discomfort among lawmakers, including members of the president’s own party, following the dramatic U.S. military operation that resulted in the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.
The resolution would require the president to obtain explicit congressional approval before conducting any further military actions against Venezuela. Those voting in favor included Republican Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Josh Hawley of Missouri, Susan Collins of Maine, and Todd Young of Indiana. Their votes underscored lingering concerns about executive overreach even as most Republicans continue to publicly support Trump’s aggressive foreign policy.
The Senate action came days after U.S. forces carried out a surprise overnight raid in Venezuela that led to the seizure of Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores. The operation stunned lawmakers from both parties, many of whom said they were not informed in advance.
In the aftermath, senior administration officials provided classified briefings to congressional leaders, easing some immediate questions but failing to quell broader concerns about the legal and constitutional basis for the mission.
Trump’s administration has made clear that it intends to exert control over Venezuela’s government and vast oil reserves, framing the raid as part of a broader effort to combat corruption, drug trafficking, and authoritarianism in the region. Critics, however, argue that the president is using shifting legal justifications to bypass Congress, describing the campaign as everything from counterterrorism operations to law enforcement actions designed to bring Maduro to trial in the United States.
Democrats have attempted several times in recent months to rein in Trump’s Venezuela policy through similar resolutions, but those efforts repeatedly failed as the president escalated his campaign. This time, they argued, the stakes are higher. With Maduro now in U.S. custody and Trump openly discussing additional geopolitical ambitions — including renewed interest in Greenland — lawmakers said Congress could no longer remain passive.
Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia, who forced the vote, said the issue goes beyond Venezuela and strikes at the heart of constitutional governance. He argued that Congress must reassert its authority over decisions of war and peace, rather than allowing such actions to be carried out behind closed doors. Kaine said military operations of this scale should not be conducted in secrecy or justified only after the fact.
Republican leadership largely stood by the president, emphasizing strength and deterrence. Senate Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota said Trump’s actions demonstrated a commitment to projecting American power and maintaining stability in the hemisphere. He argued that Venezuela had received a clear message from the administration’s show of force.
Still, the debate revealed visible tension within Republican ranks. Before the vote, several GOP senators said they were weighing the implications carefully. Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, who ultimately voted against the resolution, said he remained uneasy about open-ended military commitments. He noted that the United States has a history of intervening abroad without clear exit strategies and stressed that any deployment of ground troops should require congressional authorization.
Sen. Rand Paul, a longtime advocate for limiting presidential war powers, said that while Maduro is widely viewed as an authoritarian and an adversary, the central question is not his character but who has the constitutional authority to take the nation to war. Paul noted that Congress cannot selectively enforce its powers based on whether it agrees with the target of military action.
Democratic leaders framed Trump’s foreign policy as a dangerous distraction from domestic concerns. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer of New York questioned why a president who campaigned on an “America First” platform is now devoting so much attention and resources to overseas military ventures. He argued that voters are increasingly confused and alarmed by the administration’s focus on foreign confrontations.
The debate also revived scrutiny of the War Powers Resolution, a law passed in the aftermath of the Vietnam War to limit unilateral military action by the president. Under the Constitution, Congress holds the power to declare war, while the president serves as commander in chief. However, Congress has not formally declared war since World War II, instead allowing presidents of both parties to rely on broad authorizations and executive authority.
The War Powers Resolution requires presidents to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying U.S. forces and to terminate military action within 60 to 90 days unless lawmakers authorize it. Over decades, those limits have been stretched, reinterpreted, or ignored. Critics argue Trump has pushed those boundaries further than any recent president, consulting with private industry leaders — including oil executives — while bypassing congressional leaders entirely.
Some Republicans have gone even further, arguing that congressional approval is unnecessary. Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a close ally of Trump, said the commander in chief has broad authority to use military force and indicated he would support such action even in cases involving other countries, including Greenland.
Those comments have heightened anxiety on Capitol Hill as the administration openly discusses Greenland as a strategic target. While the White House has said military action is merely one of several options, the suggestion alone has alarmed many lawmakers. Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark, a NATO ally, making the prospect of military intervention especially controversial.
Democrats have already begun drafting measures to preempt any such move. Sen. Ruben Gallego of Arizona said he is preparing a resolution to block military action against Greenland, warning against what he described as impulsive invasions that could entangle the U.S. in new, unnecessary conflicts. Kaine has indicated similar resolutions may soon follow concerning other countries.
Even among Republicans, enthusiasm for using force against Greenland appears limited. Paul said discussions within the party revealed virtually no support for military action there. Tillis, who co-chairs the Senate NATO Observer Group, publicly criticized senior White House officials for floating the idea, calling the rhetoric reckless and damaging to U.S. alliances.
As the Senate prepares for a final vote on the Venezuela resolution, the outcome is unlikely to change Trump’s course. Yet the debate has exposed growing unease over the president’s foreign ambitions and revived a long-simmering struggle between Congress and the White House over who ultimately decides when the nation goes to war.
Original article
Comments