“A Historic Rebuke”: How the Senate Just Took the War Powers Fight to Trump — and Shocked the Nation

In a dramatic and unexpected twist on Capitol Hill Thursday evening, the United States Senate delivered a striking rebuke to President Donald Trump’s expanding military authority—voting 52–47 to advance a war powers resolution intended to stop Trump from taking further military action in Venezuela without congressional approval.

Every Senate Democrat supported the measure, along with five Republican defectors — Rand Paul, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Todd Young, and Josh Hawley — in what many are calling one of the most remarkable bipartisan checks on presidential power in recent memory.

This is a story that has the potential to reshape not just foreign policy, but the balance of power between the White House and Congress — and it’s drawing fierce reactions from all sides.

THE CONTEXT: SANCTIONED RAID AND RISING CONFLICT

The vote came in the wake of a stunning operation last weekend in Caracas, where U.S. forces carried out a nighttime raid resulting in the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife. The Trump administration has portrayed the dramatic operation as a major law-enforcement success against a regime linked to narcotics, corruption, and destabilization. But critics inside and outside Washington see it as the latest escalation in a regional conflict with far-reaching implications.

Until now, Trump’s critics in Congress had struggled to gain traction in efforts to rein in his war powers. Multiple earlier resolutions failed to garner enough support — including attempts to halt strikes on alleged drug traffickers off Venezuela’s coast.

But Thursday’s vote was different.

THE SENATE SPLITS — AND BREAKS WITH TRUMP

For the first time in his second term, a substantial number of lawmakers from Trump’s own party stepped boldly across the aisle, joining Democrats who argue that Congress—not the president—declares war.

Republican Sens. Rand Paul (KY), Susan Collins (ME), Lisa Murkowski (AK), Todd Young (IN), and Josh Hawley (MO) all backed advancing the resolution — shocking political observers and drawing an angry reaction from Trump himself.

The Senate’s action doesn’t immediately change policy — it only moves the resolution forward toward a full vote on final passage. It must still pass the House of Representatives and survive an anticipated presidential veto to become law. But the fact that it cleared this procedural hurdle is itself an extraordinary signal of growing discontent in Congress.

A CONSTITUTIONAL CONFRONTATION

Senate sponsors framed the resolution around a core principle of American governance: the Constitution gives Congress—not the White House—the power to commit U.S. forces to hostilities.

Under the 1973 War Powers Resolution, presidents must seek congressional authorization for sustained military operations, except in narrow emergency circumstances. Congress used a procedural vehicle Thursday to force debate on whether that constitutional guarantee still matters.

“If the president believes he needs to send boots on the ground, then Congress should vote on it,” Senator Hawley said after the vote — language that undercuts Trump’s traditional defense that he alone has authority as commander-in-chief.

TRUMP’S FURY — AND WHAT IT SIGNALS

Predictably, Trump lashed out.

Taking to social media, he blasted the Republican senators who voted for the resolution, declaring that they “should never be elected to office again” and accusing them of weakening America’s security.

Administration officials and allies, including Senate Republicans who voted against the measure, argued that the president has constitutional authority to conduct limited military operations — and that forcing a check on his actions now undermines national defense. t

But critics in Congress counter that Trump’s unilateral military strategy — including strikes on Venezuelan vessels and talk of expanded operations — exceeds emergencies and edges toward a broader conflict without public debate or oversight.

WHY THIS MOMENT MATTERS

For many Americans, this vote was a rare moment when Congress appeared to assert itself as a co-equal branch of government.

Supporters of the resolution argue that leaving war powers unchecked risks entangling the United States in open-ended foreign commitments, draining resources, and drawing American troops into conflicts with no clear exit strategy. They also say that Congress being in the dark about critical policy decisions erodes democratic accountability.

Opponents, however, warn that the resolution is largely symbolic and will not ultimately stop the president — especially if it never passes the House or survives a veto. Some also argue that executive flexibility is necessary in times of danger, even when events unfold quickly.

The five Republican senators who joined Democrats will now face intense political scrutiny — and in Trump’s view, even threats to their careers.

Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski — both from states where centrist politics matter — have a long history of breaking with party leadership. Rand Paul, a longtime critic of expansive military power, has consistently pushed for congressional authority over foreign deployments. Todd Young and Josh Hawley’s votes, however, were greater surprises, reflecting bipartisan concern that military escalation should not be a matter of executive whim.

Their defections send a message that unease over Trump’s foreign policy cuts across ideological lines — and could reshape the debate in both parties.

WHAT COMES NEXT — AND WHY THE PUBLIC IS WATCHING

Senate Democratic leaders say they will push for a final vote as soon as possible. House Democrats are also moving similar measures. But the path to a law that empowers Congress and limits Trump’s military reach is deeply uncertain.

Even if the resolution ultimately fails, it has exposed a widening fracture within the Republican Party and highlighted the constitutional tug-of-war at the heart of American foreign policy.

For many Americans, Thursday’s vote was more than political theater — it was a sign that some lawmakers are willing to check presidential power when they believe it oversteps its bounds.

And in a moment where global events move fast and the consequences of U.S. military action can be profound, that fight has only just begun.