U.S. Senate Blocks Bipartisan Move to Limit Trump’s War Powers Over Venezuela

 

By Joylyne Lopokoit 

The United States Senate on Thursday voted down a bipartisan resolution that sought to restrict President Donald Trump’s authority to initiate military operations against Venezuela without congressional consent, reigniting debate over presidential war powers and the role of Congress in authorizing the use of force.

In a 56–44 vote, senators rejected the measure, which was co-sponsored by a cross-party group of lawmakers aiming to reaffirm Congress’s constitutional oversight under the 1973 War Powers Resolution. Only two Republicans—Rand Paul of Kentucky and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska—broke ranks to join all Democrats in supporting the proposal.

The resolution emerged amid rising tensions in the Caribbean, where the U.S. has ramped up military activity since September. American warplanes and naval forces have conducted sustained operations against what the administration describes as “narco-terrorist” networks trafficking drugs through the region, with several strikes reportedly targeting small vessels near Venezuelan waters. The expansion of those operations has raised alarms in Washington and across Latin America about the potential for a broader confrontation.

“This is about accountability and the rule of law,” said Democratic Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, a leading advocate for congressional oversight on military action. “No single president should have the power to send the nation to war without debate and approval from Congress.”

Republicans, however, defended the president’s latitude to act swiftly in response to what they described as “emerging threats” from hostile or unstable regimes. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell warned that limiting the president’s authority “could embolden adversaries and undermine America’s deterrence posture.”

The vote reflects a deep partisan divide over the scope of executive power in matters of national security—an issue that has persisted across multiple administrations. Legal scholars have long argued that the balance between congressional authorization and presidential discretion remains unresolved, particularly in situations framed as counterterrorism or anti-narcotics operations.

While the Trump administration insists its actions are lawful and necessary to disrupt international crime syndicates, critics fear the campaign could escalate into a direct military conflict with Venezuela’s government.

For now, the resolution’s defeat preserves the president’s broad authority to conduct military operations without prior congressional approval. Whether the mounting political and legal tensions can be contained through diplomacy—or whether they presage a deeper crisis—remains uncertain.