In a dramatic escalation of tensions between the United States and Venezuela, a bipartisan coalition in the U.S. Senate is pushing back against President Donald Trump’s recent military actions near the South American nation. The move follows a series of deadly strikes on vessels in the Caribbean, which the White House claims were used for drug trafficking but which have left at least 27 people dead since early September 2025, according to Newsweek and The New York Times.
On October 17, 2025, Senators Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), and Rand Paul (R-Ky.) announced their intent to force a vote on a War Powers resolution that would block the use of U.S. troops within or against Venezuela unless Congress explicitly authorizes such action. The measure, introduced with bipartisan support, aims to reassert congressional authority over the nation’s war powers, which many lawmakers argue has been eroded by successive administrations.
The push for legislative oversight comes amid mounting concerns over President Trump’s decision to authorize not only military strikes but also covert CIA operations in Venezuela—a move confirmed by Trump himself earlier this month. The President has deployed a formidable array of military assets to the southern Caribbean, including eight warships, a nuclear-powered submarine, fighter jets, and roughly 10,000 troops, as reported by Newsweek. Trump has publicly stated, “We are certainly looking at land now, because we’ve got the sea very well under control,” hinting at the possibility of expanding operations beyond maritime strikes to ground incursions.
Senator Schiff, in a statement cited by Truthout, emphasized, “Congress has not authorized military force against Venezuela. And we must assert our authority to stop the United States from being dragged — intentionally or accidentally — into full-fledged war in South America.” The urgency is palpable, as the War Powers Act of 1973 requires Congress to consider and vote on resolutions regarding a president’s ability to enter armed conflict without explicit authorization.
The White House maintains that its actions are justified under the need to defend U.S. security, claiming the targeted boats were carrying drugs into the United States and thus posed an imminent threat. However, critics—including members of Congress and legal scholars—have questioned both the veracity of these claims and the legality of the strikes. Notably, Venezuela is not considered a significant source of drugs trafficked into the U.S., a point dismissed by Secretary of State Marco Rubio when pressed by reporters.
Senator Kaine has voiced strong reservations about the administration’s approach, telling reporters, as quoted by The New York Times, that Congress’s understanding of the legal rationale for the strikes is “a complete black hole.” He added, “Americans don’t want to send their sons and daughters into more wars—especially wars that carry a serious risk of significant destabilization and massive new waves of migration in our hemisphere.” Kaine further challenged his colleagues: “If my colleagues disagree and think a war with Venezuela is a good idea, they need to meet their constitutional obligations by making their case to the American people and passing an authorization for use of military force.”
Senator Paul, a frequent critic of overseas military interventions, reinforced the constitutional argument, writing on X (formerly Twitter), “It’s imperative that we make it clear that war powers reside with Congress, not the president.” He elaborated, “The American people do not want to be dragged into endless war with Venezuela without public debate or a vote. We ought to defend what the Constitution demands: deliberation before war.”
The proposed resolution would direct the removal of U.S. Armed Forces from hostilities in or against Venezuela that have not been authorized by Congress. Importantly, the measure does not preclude the United States from defending itself against an armed attack or an imminent threat thereof. It is designed to force a Senate vote within ten days of its introduction, leveraging the expedited procedures of the War Powers Act.
The legislative effort faces significant political headwinds. A similar measure failed in the Senate on October 10, 2025, with a 48-51 vote. While Senators Paul and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) broke ranks to support the resolution, most Republicans and some Democrats, including Senator John Fetterman (D-Pa.), opposed it. Senator Todd Young (R-Ind.), who voted against the previous measure, cited concerns about its breadth but has since indicated he may support the new, more narrowly tailored resolution. “Despite my opposition to this resolution, I am highly concerned about the legality of recent strikes in the Caribbean and the trajectory of military operations without congressional approval or debate and the support of the American people,” Young said, according to The New York Times.
The debate has also drawn international attention. Samuel Moncada, Venezuela’s top envoy to the United Nations, has condemned U.S. actions, labeling the country “a killer prowling the Caribbean, bloodthirsty, looking for wars,” as reported by Newsweek. He has petitioned the U.N. Security Council to declare U.S. military operations near Venezuelan waters illegal and to reaffirm Venezuela’s sovereignty.
Meanwhile, the Trump administration continues to justify its actions by citing the alleged threat posed by drugs and migrants. Trump told reporters that Venezuela had “emptied their prisons into the United States of America,” a claim used to bolster the argument for military intervention. However, critics argue that if the vessels were indeed carrying illegal substances, federal law enforcement—not the military—should handle such cases, as has been standard practice in the past.
The stakes are high, not only for U.S.-Venezuelan relations but also for the constitutional balance of power within the United States. The War Powers Resolution, passed in 1973 in the wake of the Vietnam War, was designed to prevent exactly this kind of unilateral executive action. Yet, as history has shown, presidents from both parties have often stretched or sidestepped these limits in the name of national security.
With the Senate expected to vote on the new resolution soon, the outcome will serve as a litmus test for congressional willingness to reassert its authority over matters of war and peace. As Senator Kaine put it, “We should be more jealous about the powers that we have.” Whether this latest bipartisan effort succeeds or falters, the debate underscores enduring questions about the separation of powers, executive overreach, and the nation’s appetite for foreign military engagements.
As the world watches, the United States faces a pivotal moment: will Congress reclaim its constitutional role in decisions of war, or will the president’s unchecked authority continue to shape the course of American foreign policy?
