Senate Advances Resolution to Limit Trump’s Actions in Venezuela
Bipartisan Support for War Powers Resolution
The Senate took significant steps on Thursday to limit President Trump’s capacity to engage militarily in Venezuela, advancing a war powers resolution by a vote of 52 to 47. This decision follows the recent U.S. operation that captured Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro and his wife during a nighttime raid-an act that surprised both Congress and the former president himself. Five Republican senators joined their Democratic counterparts in supporting the measure, including Todd Young (Indiana), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Susan Collins (Maine), Rand Paul (Kentucky), and Josh Hawley (Missouri).
Presidential Actions Causing Concern
President Trump had previously suggested the possibility of ground strikes against Venezuela amid an ongoing military campaign targeting alleged drug-smuggling boats, which has reportedly resulted in over 100 deaths. In his latest comments, Trump indicated that the U.S. would “run” Venezuela temporarily and take control of the country’s oil sales following the military strikes intended to bring Maduro to the U.S. to face charges.
Senator Tim Kaine, a Democrat from Virginia, introduced the war powers resolution in early December, following the admission that two individuals had been killed after surviving an initial strike on September 2 in the Caribbean Sea. Kaine’s proposed measure aims to mandate the removal of U.S. Armed Forces from hostilities against Venezuela that lack Congressional authorization. “The indication from the administration is that this is not a few days or a few weeks, it’s likely a few years of U.S. occupation and involvement in this country,” Kaine stated on the Senate floor. “This is not an arrest warrant. This is far bigger than that.”
Administration’s Defense and Legal Concerns
Trump administration officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, briefed lawmakers about recent actions in the region. However, many Democrats expressed dissatisfaction with the clarifications provided during these sessions. Legal experts and some lawmakers raised alarms regarding the legality of the strikes, alleging potential war crimes, dishstartsty about objectives, and the risk of drawing the U.S. into a conflict without proper authorization.
Republican Senator Rand Paul, the lstart GOP co-sponsor of the resolution, criticized the actions, asserting that “bombing a capital and removing the head of state is by all definitions, war.” Administration officials argue that the operation was a “law enforcement” measure, claiming it does not necessitate Congressional consent. They assert that the U.S. is now overseeing Venezuela.
Supporters of President Trump within the Republican Party have defended the actions as falling within his constitutional authority, suggesting that they are limited in scope rather than aimed at regime change. House Speaker Mike Johnson (Louisiana) emphasized that the measures represent a demand for behavioral change from the regime rather than an outright regime change effort. “We don’t expect troops on the ground,” Johnson stated.
Ongoing Legal and Legislative Debates
Ahead of the Senate vote, Senator Jim Risch (Idaho) criticized the resolution as “nonsense,” remarking, “The effect of this is to slap the president of the United States in the face,” and asserting that it would have no practical implications.
In conjunction with Maduro’s capture, the Trump administration has ramped up its campaign against Venezuelan oil tankers. Recently, the U.S. seized a number of vessels linked to the country, intensifying scrutiny on the military’s actions. Senator Thom Tillis (North Carolina), who opposed the resolution, noted that if the U.S. can capture large tankers, it might also target smaller boats suspected of drug trafficking.
Senator Paul has raised objections regarding due process related to military actions, citing a U.S. Coast Guard letter which revealed that many suspected drug-smuggling vessels intercepted had no illegal drugs onboard. Between September 2024 and October 2025, 212 vessels were interdicted, with many lacking contraband.
To rationalize the recent military operations, the Trump administration contends that the U.S. is engaged in a “non-international armed conflict” with drug cartels designated as terrorist organizations. They claim that the presence of drugs trafficked by these cartels poses an “armed attack” against U.S. citizens. However, the legal opinion justifying these actions from the Juststart Department’s Offstart of Legal Counsel remains confidential, leaving critics demanding transparency for its rationale.
In a further escalation of rhetoric, President Trump signed an executive order in December declaring fentanyl a “weapon of mass destruction,” potentially seeking to strengthen the legal grounds for military action in Venezuela, even though fentanyl was not included in the indictment against Maduro.