In recent weeks, the United States has found itself at the center of a brewing constitutional and international controversy, as President Donald Trump ordered a series of lethal military strikes on boats in the Caribbean—most of which, according to the White House, originated from Venezuela and were allegedly transporting deadly narcotics. The strikes, which have resulted in the deaths of more than two dozen people, were carried out without Congressional approval, sparking concern among lawmakers and igniting a broader debate about the limits of presidential war powers.
According to NPR, the situation escalated further on Wednesday, October 15, 2025, when President Trump publicly confirmed that he had authorized the Central Intelligence Agency to conduct covert operations inside Venezuela. This revelation, coupled with reports of the largest massing of U.S. troops in the region in four decades, has led many to question whether the United States is on the brink of a new, undeclared conflict.
Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has emerged as one of the most vocal critics of the administration’s actions. Alongside Republican Senator Rand Paul and Democratic Representative Adam Schiff, Kaine introduced a resolution on Thursday, October 16, 2025, aimed at requiring Congressional approval before any ground strikes or acts of war against Venezuela can proceed. As Kaine explained in his interview with NPR’s Andrew Limbong, "It is a resolution that's very simple, very short. It just says we should not be at war with Venezuela or conducting military operations in Venezuela without a vote of Congress."
Kaine’s resolution follows a prior effort earlier in October to limit Trump’s war powers, which narrowly failed in the Senate, garnering only two Republican votes. However, Kaine remains optimistic that the prospect of a land invasion will galvanize more support across party lines. "Action against a sovereign nation or an invasion of a sovereign nation is a different matter entirely," he told NPR. "I think that degree of concern escalates dramatically when you talk about the prospect of invading another nation."
The stakes are high, and the path forward is anything but assured. Should the resolution pass the Senate, it would still need to clear the House of Representatives and survive a likely presidential veto. Kaine acknowledged the uphill battle, noting, "Do I have two-thirds votes in both Houses to overturn a veto? I don't. But I noticed something in Donald Trump's first term. He's pretty sensitive to the message it sends when Republicans start to say, hold on a second – even though we normally do whatever you want, we are very uncomfortable with this."
Underlying the legislative wrangling is a fundamental question about the role of Congress in matters of war and peace. The U.S. Constitution grants only Congress the power to declare war, a provision designed by the framers to prevent unilateral executive action. Yet, as Kaine observed, presidents from both parties have frequently pushed the boundaries of their authority, often with minimal resistance from lawmakers. "Presidents have always overreached, and that's frankly why the framers of the Constitution put the decision about war in the hands of Congress," Kaine said. "What has been unfortunate – and frankly, it's been bipartisan – is that Congress has often abdicated. War votes are really tough. They are really hard. They're the hardest votes that you have to cast."
The current episode has been further complicated by a lack of transparency from the executive branch. According to Kaine, Congress has received only a "trickle of information" about the strikes, including their legal justification and evidence that the targeted vessels were indeed carrying narcotics. On September 10, 2025, a group of 25 lawmakers sent a letter to the administration demanding answers: "Give us evidence that these craft were, in fact, carrying narcotics. Give us your legal rationale for striking them. And then really importantly, tell us why you struck rather than interdicted. Because if you interdict, you seize evidence. You get people. You squeeze them, and they rat out the higher-ups. And then you use that to build criminal prosecution. If you sink a boat to the bottom of the ocean, you don't get the evidence. They have not answered any of those questions to our satisfaction."
The lack of clarity has fueled suspicions not only among lawmakers but also within the military establishment. This week, Admiral Alvin Holsey, head of U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM), stepped down from his post two years early. While the official rationale remains undisclosed, a U.S. official confirmed to NPR that Holsey’s resignation was prompted by reservations over the legality of the boat strikes and the expanding military campaign against Venezuela. Kaine alluded to this unease, stating, "I was feeling in my stomach a gut feeling that many in the military are having real concerns about the legality of these strikes. I don't know that that was the issue around the resignation of the SOUTHCOM commander, but I have some significant suspicions about it. And my colleagues do, too."
Public concern over executive overreach has also boiled over into the streets. On October 19, 2025, millions of Americans participated in 'No Kings' rallies across the country, protesting what they view as the erosion of democratic checks and balances and the failure of Congress to assert its constitutional role. Kaine, reflecting on the mood of the nation, remarked, "I would say I'd give us a pretty much a failing grade. And, you know, I think that's part of why millions of people were marching on No Kings rallies yesterday. They – at 250 years of American democracy, we still should be embracing democracy and democratic institutions and not allowing executive overreach. I don't think Congress is checking clearly illegal actions by this president to the degree that we should. But I also believe there's starting to be a little bit of a wake-up."
As the debate continues, the future of U.S. policy toward Venezuela remains uncertain. Kaine advocates for a coordinated international approach, arguing that military intervention risks alienating key allies and undermining efforts to foster political change in Venezuela. "The correct path forward is to unify with other nations and continue to put economic pressure on Venezuela to open up political space for true political competition. The military intervention strategy sounds like it's tough talk here at home, but it really drives away the nations that you need – the nations of Europe and other regional partners who could be helpful in pressuring Venezuela," he told NPR.
With Congress at a crossroads and the executive branch asserting unprecedented authority, the coming weeks will test the resilience of America’s constitutional system and its commitment to democratic oversight. For now, lawmakers like Senator Kaine are determined to keep the debate alive and ensure that the gravest decisions—those of war and peace—remain subject to the will of the people’s representatives.
