In Rare Bipartisan Move, Senate Asserts War Powers in Rebuke to Trump

A 52–47 Vote to Advance a Resolution Challenging Military Action in Venezuela Highlights Growing Concern on Capitol Hill

WASHINGTON — In a sharp and unusual public rebuke of President Donald Trump, the United States Senate on Thursday voted 52–47 to advance a war powers resolution aimed at curbing the president’s authority to take further military action in Venezuela without explicit authorization from Congress. The vote, which drew support from five Republican senators joining every Democrat in the chamber, underscored mounting unease within Capitol Hill about unchecked executive military authority and an expansive interpretation of presidential war powers.

The procedural vote does not itself enact a law — and even if it eventually passed both chambers of Congress and reached Mr. Trump’s desk, it would almost certainly face a veto. But lawmakers and constitutional scholars described the action as a meaningful assertion of legislative prerogative, striking at the heart of a longstanding struggle over the presidency’s role in directing the use of American force abroad.

“It’s long past time for Congress to reassert its critical constitutional role in matters of war, peace, diplomacy and trade,” said Senator Tim Kaine, a Virginia Democrat who led the effort to bring the resolution to the floor shortly after U.S. military operations in Venezuela.

A Rare Break With the White House

The Senate’s advance of a war powers resolution represented one of the clearest moments in the Trump presidency in which a cross-section of lawmakers, including members of his own party, confronted him on foreign policy.

Under the U.S. Constitution’s separation of powers, Congress holds the exclusive authority to declare war. Over successive administrations, presidents of both parties have increasingly relied on executive authority, particularly under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, to justify military operations without direct congressional approval. That law, passed in the aftermath of the Vietnam War, was intended to limit the president’s ability to engage U.S. forces in hostilities without consultation with lawmakers.

In early January, U.S. forces carried out a dramatic operation in Caracas, seizing Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and transporting him to the United States to face federal narcotics charges. The actions followed periods of escalating military pressure, including strikes on vessels in the Caribbean that the United States said were connected to drug trafficking. Critics argue that such operations exceed the bounds of law enforcement and amount to military action requiring congressional oversight.

The White House has defended the operation as lawful and necessary, asserting that it falls within the president’s authority as commander in chief. But the legal interpretation has been sharply contested by lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.

Five Republicans Join Democrats

In a rare display of bipartisanship on an issue of executive authority, five Republican senators — Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Josh Hawley of Missouri, Rand Paul of Kentucky and Todd Young of Indiana — joined all Senate Democrats to support advancing the war powers measure.

Their support marked a notable divergence from party leadership and from President Trump, who has vigorously defended his expanding use of executive authority. In the days following the vote, Mr. Trump took to social media to criticize the Republican senators who backed the resolution, saying they “should never be elected to office again.”

Supporters of the resolution described their actions as rooted in constitutional principle, not partisan politics. Senator Paul, long a critic of broad executive war authority, framed his support in terms of the founders’ intent to vest war powers with Congress. “The Constitution — specifically, thoughtfully — vested the power of initiating war and declaring war to Congress,” he said on the Senate floor.

Focus on Future Military Action

Although the January 8 vote advanced the measure, it did not immediately bar any current U.S. operations. The resolution, if ultimately enacted, would require the president to seek explicit congressional authorization before engaging in further sustained hostilities in or against Venezuela.

Advocates argue that the country’s recent military actions — including the seizure of Maduro — fall squarely within the scope of the Constitution’s war powers, even if the administration characterizes them as law enforcement or targeted operations.

Critics of the measure, including Senate Republican leaders, counter that the United States is not engaged in a declared war and that congressional intervention is premature. Some senators who initially supported advancing the resolution later shifted positions amid assurances from the White House that there were no plans for a broader ground war and that any future military deployments would involve consultation with Congress.

Context of Military Engagement

The debate over war powers authority has been intensified by the scale and scope of recent U.S. activities in the Western Hemisphere. Analysts note that in late 2025 and early 2026, U.S. military operations in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific under initiatives such as Operation Southern Spear involved significant deployments of air and naval assets ostensibly tied to counter-drug efforts. Critics argue that the substantial use of military force — including operations near Venezuelan territory — cannot be neatly separated from traditional hostilities.

The Senate action followed earlier failed attempts to limit the president’s authority, including previous resolutions in which only a handful of Republicans joined Democrats. In November and December 2025, earlier war powers measures failed in the Senate. The January vote represented the first time the chamber advanced such a resolution with clear bipartisan support.

House of Representatives Rejects Parallel Measure

While the Senate debated the issue, the U.S. House of Representatives held its own vote on a related resolution that would have required the president to seek congressional authorization before deploying U.S. Armed Forces to Venezuela. On January 22, that measure failed in a tie vote, with Republicans narrowly defeating it by a 215–215 margin after the last-minute arrival of a GOP member.

The House decision highlighted the continued divisions within the Republican Party and within Congress more broadly over how to balance executive authority with constitutional oversight.

A Symbolic Moment With Limited Immediate Effect

Even if the Senate resolution ultimately became law, it would likely face a presidential veto and would require strong congressional margins to override. The Trump administration has made clear its opposition to the war powers effort, and party discipline among Republicans remains a significant obstacle to final passage.

Nevertheless, the Senate vote carried symbolic weight. For lawmakers who have grown uneasy about expansive executive power — not only in foreign military actions but also in trade and border policy — the decision to advance a war powers measure was portrayed as a reaffirmation of Congress’s constitutional responsibilities.

“It’s time for Congress to assert its control over military action of this kind, and it’s time to get this out of secrecy and put it in the light,” said Senator Kaine.

While the immediate impact on U.S. military operations is limited, the debate itself has amplified longstanding concerns about the separation of powers and the role of Congress in authorizing force. In an era of frequent executive actions and expanding presidential claims of authority, Thursday’s vote resonated far beyond Washington, setting the stage for future battles over congressional oversight and constitutional guardrails.