The U.S. Senate delivered a striking message to the White House on January 8, 2026, narrowly advancing a war powers resolution that would restrict President Donald Trump’s ability to launch further military operations in Venezuela without explicit congressional approval. The 52-47 vote, which saw five Republican senators break ranks to join all Democrats, marks the most significant congressional rebuke yet of Trump’s foreign policy maneuvers in Latin America and has set the stage for a heated constitutional showdown over the limits of presidential war-making authority.
The resolution, spearheaded by Democratic Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia and co-led by Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, emerged in the wake of a dramatic U.S. military raid in Caracas that resulted in the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores. Both now face federal charges in the United States, including narcoterrorism conspiracy. According to ABC News, the operation was described by the Trump administration as a law enforcement action facilitated by the military, not an act of war. Nonetheless, the scale and implications of the mission have rattled lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.
“Where will this go next? Will the President deploy our troops to protect Iranian protesters? To enforce the fragile ceasefire in Gaza? To battle terrorists in Nigeria? To seize Greenland or the Panama Canal? To suppress Americans peacefully assembling to protest his policies?” Kaine asked in a statement on January 3. “Trump has threatened to do all this and more and sees no need to seek legal authorization from people’s elected legislature before putting servicemembers at risk.” Kaine argued it was “long past time for Congress to reassert its critical constitutional role in matters of war, peace, diplomacy and trade.”
The Senate’s resolution, while not retroactively blocking the raid that ousted Maduro, would require President Trump to obtain congressional approval before launching any additional military hostilities in or against Venezuela. This is not the first time Congress has tried to rein in Trump’s war powers. As reported by NOTUS and TIME, similar efforts failed in the Senate in October and November and in the House in December, after U.S. strikes targeted alleged drug traffickers and seized Venezuelan oil tankers. But the latest vote came just days after the U.S. crossed what many lawmakers called a “consequential new threshold” with its boots-on-the-ground operation in Venezuela.
Five Republican senators—Rand Paul, Lisa Murkowski, Todd Young, Susan Collins, and Josh Hawley—joined Democrats in supporting the measure. Senator Susan Collins, in a statement quoted by ABC News, explained her position: “With Maduro rightfully captured, the circumstances have now changed. While I support the operation to seize Nicolás Maduro, which was extraordinary in its precision and complexity, I do not support committing additional U.S. forces or entering into any long-term military involvement in Venezuela or Greenland without specific congressional authorization.”
Senator Collins elaborated to News Center Maine that she disagreed with the administration’s notion of “running” Venezuela. “Venezuelans need to run Venezuela. That is not the job of the United States,” she said. “It doesn’t mean that we don’t provide assistance along with other international partners and the private sector to help the country get back on its feet.”
Senator Hawley, meanwhile, characterized his support for the resolution as a “forward-looking check on potential escalation,” telling reporters, “I see this as a prospective thing going forward. If the DOD should recommend putting troops on the ground, the president should want to do that, I think Congress would need to be on the hook for that.” Senator Young echoed this concern, stating, “The President and members of his team have stated that the United States now ‘runs’ Venezuela. It is unclear if that means that an American military presence will be required to stabilize the country. I — along with what I believe to be the vast majority of Hoosiers — am not prepared to commit American troops to that mission. Although I remain open to persuasion, any future commitment of U.S. forces in Venezuela must be subject to debate and authorization in Congress.”
Senator Rand Paul, who has long advocated for congressional oversight of military interventions, said after the vote, “The previous votes have been more hypothetical. This vote is about a real incursion. It’s about a real invasion of a foreign country. … I think the vote today reflects that more Republicans are taking it seriously.”
Despite the Senate’s decisive action, the resolution’s future remains uncertain. The House, which previously rejected a similar measure, is expected to vote on the bill next week. Even if it passes both chambers, the White House has made its opposition clear. According to a memo from the Office of Management and Budget obtained by ABC News, administration advisors would recommend a veto if the resolution reached the president’s desk. The memo argued, “Maduro’s crimes and other hostile actions have resulted in a predatory incursion into the United States, the destabilization of the Western Hemisphere, massive death and human suffering, and a substantial and ongoing danger posed to our Nation.”
President Trump responded to the Senate vote with characteristic vigor, publicly denouncing the five Republican senators who sided with Democrats. In a social media post, Trump declared they “should be ashamed” and “never be elected to office again.” He added, “This Vote greatly hampers American Self Defense and National Security, impeding the President’s Authority as Commander in Chief.” In a separate post quoted by TIME, Trump argued, “In any event, and despite their ‘stupidity,’ the War Powers Act is Unconstitutional, totally violating Article II of the Constitution, as all Presidents, and their Departments of Justice, have determined before me.”
The Constitution, of course, vests Congress with the authority to declare war, while making the president the commander in chief of the military. This balance has been a source of tension for decades, with presidents from both parties occasionally taking military action without congressional approval. The War Powers Resolution of 1973, passed over President Nixon’s veto, was designed to check this trend by requiring notification of Congress within 48 hours of deploying U.S. forces and mandating an end to hostilities within 60 to 90 days without explicit authorization.
Not all Republicans were swayed by the arguments for congressional restraint. Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso, in remarks reported by ABC News, urged his colleagues to reject the resolution. “Let’s be clear about what that resolution does and what it does not do. It does not reassert Congress's powers. It does not make America stronger. It makes America weaker and less safe,” Barrasso said. “It would weaken the President’s legitimate, constitutional authority. This body, the United States Senate, is being asked whether the President of the United States has the authority to arrest indicted criminals. Of course he does. Democrats want to weaken the President’s ability to enforce the law. That is the wrong message to send to hardened drug traffickers and to dictators.”
As the debate moves to the House and the White House prepares for a likely veto, the nation watches closely. The outcome will not only determine the future of U.S. involvement in Venezuela but could also set a precedent for how—and by whom—America’s military might is wielded abroad.
