Last updated 4 months ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.
On Thursday, January 8, 2026, five Republican senators broke with their president on a matter of war and peace. The Senate voted 52-47 to advance a resolution that would block President Trump from conducting further military operations in Venezuela without approval from Congress first. Every Democrat voted yes. So did Senators Josh Hawley of Missouri, Rand Paul of Kentucky, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine, and Todd Young of Indiana.
The vote came five days after more than 150 U.S. military aircraft descended on Venezuela in a predawn raid to capture President Nicolás Maduro.
What matters is what the vote reveals about the limits of presidential power. Even some in the GOP are asking: Can a president invade another country and tell Congress about it later?
The Venezuela Military Operation
Operation Absolute Resolve involved F-22s, F-35s, B-1 bombers, and attack helicopters that penetrated Venezuelan air defenses after 2 a.m. local time on January 3. No American casualties. Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, were in federal custody by the weekend.
Venezuelan officials claimed about 100 people died in the operation. Reports indicate approximately 75 total deaths, including around 32 Cuban military advisors.
The administration insists this wasn’t a military invasion requiring congressional authorization. It was, they say, a law enforcement operation. Maduro had been indicted on federal charges. There was a warrant. The military was simply providing security for what was an arrest.
The problem with that argument? Trump himself undermined it within days. He told the New York Times that the United States would be “running” Venezuela and extracting its oil for “much longer” than a year. Those statements don’t sound like executing an arrest warrant. They sound like overthrowing the government and taking control of the country. That’s the kind of military action that requires Congress’s approval under the War Powers Resolution of 1973.
Why Five Republicans Broke Ranks
Rand Paul’s vote was consistent with his longstanding skepticism of military interventions. He co-introduced the resolution alongside Democrat Tim Kaine of Virginia.
Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins also voted for the measure, consistent with their stated commitment to maintaining checks and balances on executive power.
But the votes that signal something are Josh Hawley’s and Todd Young’s. Hawley is an outspoken conservative who has generally aligned with Trump. Young typically supports broad presidential power. Neither had an obvious political incentive to break with the White House.
Hawley took the lead in explaining the skeptics’ reasoning. “To me, this is all about going forward,” he said. “If the president should determine, ‘You know what? I need to put troops on the ground of Venezuela.’ I think that would require Congress to weigh in.”
Hawley wasn’t objecting to the January 3 raid itself. He was worried about what comes next. If the White House can conduct a major military operation without Congress’s approval and then announce plans for indefinite occupation and oil extraction, what’s to stop any future leader from treating Congress as an afterthought on matters of war?
Young made a similar argument, emphasizing that he wanted to ensure “going forward” there would be clear congressional involvement in decisions to escalate military involvement in Venezuela.
Trump responded by declaring on social media that the five “should never be elected to office again” and that their vote would “greatly hamper American Self Defense and National Security.” The lawmakers didn’t apologize.
The War Powers Resolution and Presidential Evasion
The measure invokes the War Powers Resolution of 1973, passed by overwhelming bipartisan majorities over Richard Nixon’s veto in the aftermath of the Vietnam War. The statute requires the White House to notify Congress within 48 hours of introducing U.S. forces into hostilities. If Congress doesn’t authorize the action, military involvement must end within 60 days.
Presidents have routinely sidestepped its requirements through creative legal interpretations and the simple fact that once military operations are underway and armed forces are committed, Congress finds it politically difficult to demand their withdrawal.
The Trump administration’s arguments regarding the Venezuela operation followed this established pattern. Officials contended that the White House possessed built-in constitutional power to conduct the operation, particularly given the U.S. labeling Venezuelan criminal groups as terrorist organizations and Maduro’s indictment on federal criminal charges.
But critics pointed out that if any foreign leader can be designated as a terrorist and then a military operation conducted to apprehend that leader—all while characterizing such operations as law enforcement rather than military action—then the War Powers Resolution becomes meaningless. Congress would be reduced to a funding body that complains after the fact but can’t constrain executive military action.
The Constitutional Question: Who Decides on War?
The debate over the Venezuela operation comes down to a fundamental constitutional question: Who decides when America goes to war?
The Constitution makes the chief executive the head of the military while granting Congress the power to declare war. This split reflected what the Constitution’s writers wanted: to make going to war difficult by requiring legislative consensus rather than unilateral executive action. But the Constitution also granted broad authority to direct military operations and respond to immediate dangers. That tension has never been fully resolved.
The Trump administration’s position rests on a broad interpretation of constitutional powers. According to this view, the White House possesses built-in constitutional power to protect national security, defend Americans, and conduct military operations against terrorist organizations without requiring explicit legislative authorization. Supporters argue that speed is essential—immediate threats and fast-moving crises require acting first and asking permission afterward.
The counterargument isn’t that a chief executive can never act quickly. It’s that quick action is being used as a standing theory of government. If every administration can declare an emergency and then conduct military operations without legislative approval, treating Congress as a subordinate institution that funds operations after the fact, then the Constitution’s plan for who decides on war would be flipped upside down from what the Framers intended.
Senator Tim Kaine, the primary sponsor of the measure, framed the issue bluntly: Congress learned of the operation only after U.S. forces had completed their mission. Real consultation requires prior notification and an opportunity for deliberation.
Why the Vote Matters Despite Unlikely Passage
The measure faces dim prospects in the House. Speaker Mike Johnson has shown little inclination to push back against Trump. Even if the measure cleared the House, Trump would veto it, and there aren’t enough votes to override his veto.
The Senate vote matters because it reveals disagreements within the GOP when the White House is moving aggressively to expand executive power. If five would vote to restrict the ability to conduct further military operations in Venezuela, the same coalition might support other constraints on executive power in different contexts.
Venezuela is unlikely to be the last test. Trump has already floated the possibility of military action to acquire Greenland, a Danish territory and NATO ally. He’s threatened military intervention in Colombia. He’s suggested that U.S. forces might remain in Venezuela indefinitely. A bipartisan group of lawmakers is already introducing legislation designed to prevent military action against Greenland or other NATO territories.
Even symbolic votes have consequences in an era when assertions of Congress’s traditional powers have become increasingly rare. The five who broke with the White House put themselves on record as supporting legislative assertion of war powers authority. That creates a template that future lawmakers might follow if a president continues grabbing too much power.
The vote also demonstrated that concerns about war-making authority cut across party lines. If Trump loses political capital through scandals or policy failures, if his party faces electoral consequences for their acquiescence to executive overreach, or if international crises make voters prioritize institutional stability, the coalition supporting legislative constraints could expand.
The Enforcement Problem
The practical question remains: How do you stop a chief executive from conducting military operations without Congress’s approval?
War powers measures, as fifty years of history demonstrate, don’t work on their own. Presidents ignore them. Courts generally refuse to intervene, treating these as internal government disputes that Congress and the president should settle themselves.
The most effective tool Congress has is control over government spending. Congress could refuse to appropriate funds for military operations in Venezuela. It could tie military funding to Congress’s approval. It could pass legislation to hold military officers legally responsible who conduct operations without authorization.
Representative Bill Keating of Massachusetts made this point when introducing bipartisan legislation to prevent military action against NATO countries. “War powers are important, but we’ve seen with Democratic and Republican presidents that that’s not as effective,” Keating said. His legislation would block funding and prevent personnel deployment.
But all of these tools require Congress staying committed and legislative follow-through. Historically, Congress has proven reluctant to use them once military operations are underway and American forces are deployed. It’s politically difficult to cut funding for troops in the field, even if you opposed the decision to send them there in the first place.
What This Signals About Trump’s Second Term
The Venezuela vote revealed something important about the current party’s internal divisions. Despite Trump’s outsized influence, the party retains members who believe in limiting presidential power and Congress’s traditional powers.
Throughout his presidency, Trump has sought to consolidate executive authority, pushing back against limits on spending, independent watchdog oversight, and any legislative constraint on his freedom of action. Congressional Republicans have largely gone along with it, despite occasional grumbling about the precedents being set.
Yet the Venezuela vote suggests that some understand that Trump grabbing more power will set examples that future administrations—potentially including Democratic ones—could follow. If Trump’s political fortunes decline, these tensions within the coalition could deepen, creating space for more assertive congressional action. Conversely, if Trump maintains strong support among voters and conservative activists, he could continue to punish defectors through the threat of primary challenges.
The five who voted for the measure absorbed Trump’s public repudiation without capitulating. Their willingness to accept that political cost suggests that some retain concerns about war powers that go beyond party loyalty.
The Senate’s vote, though unlikely to become law, officially objected on behalf of the institution and provided ammunition for those who argue that the executive branch has overstepped the constitutional bounds of its authority. It demonstrated that even in an era of rigid party discipline, five were willing to say: This far, and no further. That may not stop the next military operation, but it signals that the question of who decides when America goes to war is far from settled.
Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.