Capitol Hill is once again the stage for a high-stakes battle over the power to wage war, as House Democrats push to curtail President Donald Trump’s ability to launch or expand military operations in Venezuela without congressional approval. The move comes in the wake of a series of U.S. strikes targeting cartel and narcotics operations in the Caribbean—actions that have not only rattled lawmakers but also alarmed regional governments and international organizations.
On November 24, 2025, House Democrats introduced a binding War Powers Resolution, designed to block President Trump from taking further military action in Venezuela unless Congress explicitly authorizes it. The resolution, spearheaded by Rep. Jim Himes (D-CT), is an attempt to reassert congressional authority over the use of force—a principle enshrined in the Constitution but, as critics argue, increasingly ignored in recent decades.
“We cannot allow any president to unilaterally drag the United States into a conflict,” Himes told Military.com. His sentiment was echoed in the Senate by Democrat Andy Kim of New Jersey, who declared, “Decisions of war belong with Congress and the American people. Transparency and accountability are non-negotiable when American lives and global stability are at stake.”
But the White House and its Republican allies see things differently. According to White House spokesperson Anna Kelly, “While Democrats and the fake news have joined forces to push nonsense about President Trump’s authority as commander in chief, the president’s actions to halt the scourge of narco-terrorism are consistent with his responsibility to protect Americans and pursuant to his constitutional authority. All actions comply fully with the law of armed conflict.”
The Trump administration insists that Congress has been briefed on its actions and legal justifications, but lawmakers remain divided. Republicans argue that the president holds broad authority to act against transnational criminal networks and armed groups threatening U.S. interests and allies. Democrats, meanwhile, warn of a dangerous slide toward undeclared and potentially endless conflict.
As the debate rages in Washington, the Pentagon has sought to reassure both Congress and the public that the current mission is limited and legally justified. Pentagon spokesperson Kingsley Wilson told Military.com that “these presidentially directed strikes were conducted against the operations of a designated terrorist organization and were taken in defense of vital U.S. national interests and in the collective self-defense of other nations.” Wilson emphasized that the strikes occurred in international waters, with no U.S. ground forces deployed, and that “precision targeting and strict rules of engagement were used to reduce risk to civilians and American personnel.”
Yet the scope and intent of the operation have raised eyebrows, particularly given the recent flurry of boat strikes and warship movements near Venezuela. Critics point to the Trump administration’s record of expanding military operations without congressional approval, not just in Latin America but across the Middle East and Africa. According to The Nation, in the first 10 months of his second term alone, Trump ordered hundreds of air strikes in the Middle East—surpassing the number during President Biden’s entire presidency or Trump’s own first term. Many of these strikes, particularly in Yemen and Somalia, resulted in significant civilian casualties.
Trump’s approach to foreign policy has been anything but diplomatic, critics say. He has repeatedly dismissed checks on his use of military force, once stating bluntly, “We’re just gonna kill people.” This attitude, coupled with his appointment of hawkish officials like Marco Rubio to dual roles as secretary of state and national security adviser, has fueled concerns about a presidency increasingly untethered from constitutional and international constraints.
In June 2025, Trump ordered the bombing of Iran’s Fordo, Natanz, and Isfahan nuclear facilities—the first direct U.S. strikes on Iran since the 1980s. He has also maintained several thousand combat troops in Iraq and Syria, continuing to bomb suspected ISIS positions and Iranian-allied militias. These actions, often justified by post-9/11 authorizations for use of military force, have drawn criticism for exceeding the original scope of congressional approval and for undermining the separation of powers.
“Popular support for checks on presidential war powers has eroded as leaders of both parties have deferred to the executive branch,” The Nation observed. While the War Powers Resolution of 1973 was intended to prevent exactly this kind of unchecked intervention, presidents from both parties—Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden—have repeatedly engaged in military operations without explicit congressional consent.
Congressional pushback has been sporadic at best. The largest outcry in recent years came not over the substance of U.S. air strikes, but over a leak revealing internal security discussions about an attack in Yemen. As The Nation pointed out, “the outcry was because a reporter was accidentally included in a Signal chat group between US security officials about the attack, not because it involved destruction of an entire apartment building with civilians inside, or that the air strike, like the others on that country, were not authorized by Congress.”
Meanwhile, the international community is watching closely. The Organization of American States (OAS), the world’s oldest regional organization, has urged restraint and emphasized the need to prevent escalation. “The Americas remain a zone of peace with no open wars,” an OAS spokesperson told Military.com. “Our shared responsibility is to preserve that peace through dialogue and cooperation.”
Regional leaders worry that continued U.S. military activity could destabilize fragile governments, disrupt vital energy exports, and upend maritime trade routes that are central to both regional and global economies. Any escalation could also trigger new waves of migration and strain relations between Washington and its neighbors.
Back in Washington, House leadership is weighing whether to fast-track the War Powers Resolution for a vote—an action that could force lawmakers, especially those in swing districts or states with major ports and military bases, to take a public stand on the issue. If the resolution passes, it would represent the most significant congressional challenge to presidential war powers in years, potentially setting the stage for a constitutional showdown.
For now, the battle lines are clear. One side argues for robust executive action to protect American interests; the other warns of the dangers of unchecked power and the erosion of democratic norms. As the debate unfolds, the stakes—for the Constitution, for America’s role in the world, and for the lives of those caught in the crossfire—could not be higher.
As Congress prepares to vote, the outcome will determine not only the future of U.S. policy in Venezuela and the Caribbean, but also the enduring balance of power between the legislative and executive branches—a test of the very principles on which the nation was founded.
