WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a razor-thin vote on October 10, 2025, the U.S. Senate narrowly rejected a measure that would have required President Donald Trump to seek congressional approval before continuing his administration’s controversial military campaign against alleged Venezuelan drug trafficking vessels in the Caribbean. The failed resolution, introduced by Democratic Senators Adam Schiff of California and Tim Kaine of Virginia—with support from Republican Senators Rand Paul of Kentucky and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska—fell just short in a 48-51 decision, underscoring deep divisions on Capitol Hill over the scope of presidential war powers and America’s growing military footprint in the region.
The measure sought to check the president’s authority to conduct military strikes in the Caribbean, where U.S. forces have recently targeted boats suspected of smuggling fentanyl and other narcotics into the United States. According to reporting from The Hill and Nexstar Media, the Trump administration has authorized at least four such strikes since early September, resulting in at least 21 fatalities. The most recent operation, confirmed by Pentagon officials, occurred on October 3 off the Venezuelan coast and killed four people onboard a vessel in international waters.
Senator Schiff, speaking on the Senate floor before the vote, emphasized the constitutional question at the heart of the debate. “And we are here today to ask our colleagues to join us in this nonpartisan vote, in this affirmation of Congress’s authority to declare war or to refuse to declare it, to authorize force, or to refuse to authorize it,” Schiff said. He also clarified the intent behind the resolution: “We have been precise and deliberate with crafting this resolution. It does not affect the United States’ ability to target terrorist groups covered by Congress’s existing authorizations to use military force.”
Despite bipartisan backing from a handful of lawmakers, the measure was ultimately defeated, with most Republicans rallying behind the president. Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas, who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee, defended the strikes as both lawful and limited. “President Trump stated very clearly and repeatedly during the campaign that he would attack these cartels if necessary. This is simply him keeping his word to the American people. Also, the President’s strikes were lawfully sound and extremely limited,” Cotton argued before the vote. He further contended, “Because they’ve been going on for less than 60 days, they don’t even fall within the War Powers Resolution threshold.”
Other Republicans echoed Cotton’s view, framing the strikes as a necessary extension of the president’s campaign promises and a legitimate response to the growing threat of narcotics smuggling. Secretary of State Marco Rubio weighed in on social media, warning, “This resolution aims to strip President Trump of his constitutional authority to protect Americans by authorizing military strikes against narco-terrorists, the Houthis, and other Iranian proxies. This is dangerous — it puts our children, citizens, soldiers, and allies at risk.”
Yet, the administration’s approach has drawn fierce criticism from both sides of the aisle. Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, cautioned that “using the U.S. military to conduct unchecked strikes in the Caribbean risks destabilizing the region, provoking confrontation with neighboring governments, and dragging our forces into yet another open-ended conflict without a clear mission or exit strategy.” Reed did not mince words about what he sees as a troubling precedent: “This is about one man’s impulsive decision-making.”
Senator Tim Kaine, who sits on the Armed Services Committee and helped spearhead the resolution, expressed alarm after a classified briefing last week. He told reporters, “The administration has not explained why these lethal measures are necessary,” raising concerns that innocent people—including victims of human trafficking—could be caught in the crossfire. Indeed, questions about collateral damage intensified after Colombian President Gustavo Petro publicly stated that the latest vessel destroyed by U.S. forces was Colombian-owned and carried Colombian citizens. Petro called for full disclosure on the circumstances of the strike, a request that has yet to be answered by U.S. officials.
Senator Rand Paul, one of the few Republicans to support the measure, took to social media to voice his misgivings: “The U.S. should not be blowing up boats without even knowing who’s on them. There’s no due process in that — no names, no evidence, no oversight.” Senator Lisa Murkowski, another Republican who joined the effort, helped bring the measure to a full Senate vote, highlighting the nonpartisan nature of the concerns about executive overreach.
Further complicating the debate, President Trump has recently suggested that land-based operations could follow the naval strikes, raising the specter of a broader conflict. Last week, the president declared war on drug cartels designated as terrorist organizations by his administration, providing what he and his supporters argue is a legal rationale for continued military action in the region. This escalation marks a significant policy shift from traditional U.S. counter-narcotics operations in the Caribbean, which have historically been conducted by the U.S. Coast Guard and focused on law enforcement and maritime interdiction rather than military engagement.
Critics warn that the president’s decision to deploy the U.S. military for these missions could set a dangerous precedent for future foreign operations without congressional authorization. “This is not how we should be conducting foreign policy or military operations,” Senator Kaine insisted, pointing to the lack of transparency and oversight. The identities of those killed in the strikes remain undisclosed, fueling speculation and unease among regional partners and human rights advocates alike.
The issue has also reignited a longstanding debate over the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches when it comes to the use of military force. Proponents of the resolution argue that unchecked presidential authority risks entangling the U.S. in open-ended conflicts with unclear objectives, while opponents maintain that swift executive action is necessary to confront evolving threats like drug cartels and terrorist organizations.
Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, notably, was the only Democrat to vote against the resolution, underscoring the complex and sometimes unpredictable nature of the Senate’s alignment on matters of war and peace. As the dust settles from the vote, it remains clear that the battle over war powers is far from resolved. With the potential for further military escalation in the Caribbean and mounting questions about the legality, efficacy, and consequences of these strikes, lawmakers and the American public alike are left to grapple with the implications of the Senate’s decision.
As tensions simmer between Congress and the White House, and as America’s military role in the Caribbean continues to expand, the coming months will test both the limits of presidential authority and the willingness of legislators to assert their constitutional prerogatives. For now, the Senate’s narrow vote leaves President Trump with a freer hand—but also with heightened scrutiny and no shortage of controversy.
