On Thursday, Republican senators turned down a resolution aimed at restricting President Trump’s authority to carry out military actions in Venezuela without Congressional approval. This decision occurred as the White House remained focused on combating suspected drug-trafficking operations across South America.
The resolution, put forward by Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) last month, fell short in the Senate with a vote of 51-49. Notably, Republican Senators Lisa Murkowski from Alaska and Rand Paul from Kentucky sided with the Democrats on this issue.
This resolution sought to “direct the President to cease military actions against Venezuela unless authorized by a declaration of war or a special authorization for military force.”
“I believe we should not engage in warfare without Congress’s consent,” Kaine stated before the vote.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), known for his strong defense stance, argued against the resolution, claiming that the War Powers Act infringes upon the President’s constitutional rights to conduct military operations. He elaborated that it “removes the executive’s ability to make military decisions, giving that power to Congress instead.”
“If the War Powers Act could override the commander-in-chief’s choices, it would strip Congress of a crucial authority, which would be a real problem for our country,” he added.
Meanwhile, Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) expressed skepticism about the American desire to “overthrow” the Venezuelan regime with the hope of replacing it with something better.
“If the administration thinks that’s the way forward, they need to come to Congress to make their case,” Schiff continued. “They should address the American people and seek authorization for any military action against President Maduro but we must not neglect our own responsibilities.”
Kaine, who had 15 co-sponsors for his resolution, saw it introduced shortly after Trump acknowledged CIA operations aimed at Venezuela.
Even though Sen. Todd Young (R-Ind.) voted against the resolution, he clarified that his vote did not reflect support for the administration’s current Caribbean and Eastern Pacific strategy. He expressed concern that the escalating military involvement without Congressional input posed dangers and was inconsistent with public sentiment favoring reduced military engagement abroad.
The administration is gathering significant military assets in the Southern Command region, including warships, fighter jets, and even a nuclear-powered submarine.
Both President Trump and other officials have intensified their criticism of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, branding him as an “illegitimate leader.” In a recent CBS interview, Trump suggested that Maduro’s days may be numbered but stopped short of indicating an imminent military strike.
Schiff and Kaine had previously introduced a resolution aimed at stopping U.S. military strikes against suspected drug-trafficking vessels, but it was also rejected by Republican senators. Since the beginning of military operations, 16 airstrikes have targeted smugglers, resulting in multiple fatalities among those labeled as “narco-terrorists.” Following a strike in October, two individuals were sent back to their countries.
This past Monday, the White House asserted that it didn’t require Congressional authorization to continue its operations against boats, arguing that the actions did not constitute “hostile conduct” necessitating such approval. The operations were mainly executed using drones launched from Navy ships in international waters.
The 1973 War Powers Resolution mandates that the President must halt military operations after 60 days without Congressional endorsement, although an extension can be requested. This deadline recently passed, following the administration’s initial notification to Congress regarding the strikes.
In recent weeks, the Trump administration has been updating lawmakers about the military operations. A briefing led by Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth took place on Wednesday, though some Democrats remained uneasy and sought additional details. Other legislators seemed reassured about the intelligence operations involved.
“What if there were innocent bystanders nearby?” questioned Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.), emphasizing potential complications. “We need to understand the full picture.”
