Senate Rejects Resolution to Limit Trump's Military Actions in Venezuela

Jan 15, 2026, 2:30 AM

Hover over text to view sources

The US Senate has voted against a war powers resolution aimed at curtailing President Donald Trump's ability to take military action in Venezuela without prior congressional approval. The resolution, which sought to require the president to notify Congress before any further military strikes, failed by a vote of 51 to 49, with a tie-breaking vote cast by Senator JD Vance.

Initially, the resolution had garnered bipartisan support, with five Republican senators joining Democrats to advance it. However, Senators Josh Hawley of Missouri and Todd Young of Indiana reversed their positions after receiving assurances from the Trump administration that there were no American troops currently in Venezuela and that any major military operations would be preceded by a request for congressional authorization.

Senator Tim Kaine, a Democrat from Virginia, expressed disappointment over the vote, stating, "We should not be going to war without a vote of Congress." He emphasized the need for congressional oversight, especially given the escalating military actions in the region, which have included a series of strikes against vessels suspected of drug trafficking.

The backdrop to this legislative action includes a significant military buildup by the US off the coast of Venezuela, where Trump has ordered multiple strikes against alleged drug smuggling boats. These operations have reportedly resulted in the deaths of at least 65 individuals, raising concerns about the legality and morality of such actions, which some critics have labeled as extrajudicial killings.

Democratic leaders have voiced their concerns that the Senate's decision emboldens Trump to pursue a more aggressive military strategy in Venezuela. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer remarked, "Make no mistake about it: this vote makes things more dangerous, not less." He warned that it could lead to further military escalation in the region.

The resolution's failure comes amid a broader debate about the scope of presidential war powers. Many lawmakers, including some Republicans, have expressed frustration over the lack of transparency and the potential for the US to become embroiled in a conflict without proper legislative oversight.

Senator Rand Paul, a Republican who supported the resolution, criticized the notion that military action could be taken without congressional consent. He stated, "If we don't know it's a war until after all the people die... wouldn't it then be a little late?" This sentiment reflects a growing concern among some lawmakers about the implications of unchecked executive power in military matters.

As tensions continue to rise in Venezuela, the implications of the Senate's decision remain to be seen. The Trump administration has indicated that it views narco-traffickers as military threats, which could justify further military actions under the current legal framework.

In conclusion, the Senate's rejection of the war powers resolution highlights the ongoing debate over military authority and the need for congressional oversight in matters of war. As the situation in Venezuela evolves, lawmakers will likely continue to grapple with the balance between national security interests and the constitutional requirement for congressional approval of military action.

Senate Votes Against War Powers Resolution on Venezuela

The Senate voted 51-50 to block a resolution that would have restricted President Trump's military actions in Venezuela. Vice President JD Vance cast the tie-breaking vote after two Republican senators reversed their support for the measure, following pressure from the Trump administration.

Trump Claims Iran Executions 'Stopped' Amid Ongoing Protests

President Trump stated that he has been informed that executions in Iran have ceased, despite Iranian officials indicating plans for rapid trials and executions of detained protesters. The situation remains tense as the US considers its response to Iran's crackdown on dissent.

Supreme Court Allows Candidates to Challenge Election Laws

The US Supreme Court has ruled that candidates can legally challenge election laws before voting begins, a decision that may lead to an increase in pre-election lawsuits. The ruling, which stemmed from a case involving Illinois Rep. Michael Bost, establishes that candidates have a personal stake in the election rules that govern their races.

DOJ Interviews Democratic Lawmakers Over 'Illegal Orders' Video

The Department of Justice is investigating six Democratic lawmakers who appeared in a video urging military personnel to disobey illegal orders. The inquiry has drawn accusations of political harassment from the lawmakers, who assert they were merely restating legal principles.

Federal Judges Approve California's New Democratic Map for 2026

A federal three-judge panel has allowed California to implement a new congressional map designed to favor Democrats in the upcoming 2026 elections. The ruling, which comes after a voter-approved initiative, is seen as a significant victory for the Democratic Party amid ongoing redistricting battles across the country.