The Senate voted 52-47 on Thursday to move forward with a resolution that would limit President Donald Trump’s ability to take further military action against Venezuela without specific approval from Congress. The measure comes days after U.S. forces conducted an airstrike in Caracas and captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.
The resolution, which was discharged from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, prohibits military operations “within or against” Venezuela unless Congress authorizes them. The procedural vote suggests there is significant support for the measure, but its final passage is not guaranteed.
This vote marks a change from several months ago when a similar proposal failed in the Senate. Some Republican senators who previously opposed the resolution—Susan Collins of Maine, Todd Young of Indiana, and Josh Hawley of Missouri—voted in favor this time. Rand Paul of Kentucky and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska also supported the resolution again.
Senator Susan Collins explained her decision: “I believe invoking the War Powers act at this moment is necessary, given the President’s comments about the possibility of ‘boots on the ground’ and a sustained engagement ‘running’ Venezuela, with which I do not agree.”
Senator John Fetterman, Democrat from Pennsylvania, maintained his support despite expressing doubts earlier in the week. He stated his vote was intended to “continue this important debate on the floor of the Senate,” leaving open whether he would back it during final passage.
The recent U.S. operation in Caracas led to Maduro and his wife being apprehended; both pleaded not guilty to charges related to cocaine trafficking in federal court in Manhattan. Maduro claimed he had been “kidnapped” from his home during court proceedings.
President Trump has said that following these events, “the United States would now ‘run’ Venezuela,” raising concerns about possible long-term military involvement. Administration officials have tried to clarify that their goal is pressure on interim president Delcy Rodriguez—Maduro’s vice president—to align with U.S. interests rather than deploy more troops or extend military operations.
Senator Todd Young commented: “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.”
After Thursday’s vote, Trump criticized Republican supporters of the resolution on social media: “Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Rand Paul, Josh Hawley, and Todd Young should never be elected to office again… This Vote greatly hampers American Self Defense and National Security, impeding the President’s Authority as Commander in Chief.” He also downplayed its significance by noting another key vote remains ahead.
Vice President JD Vance told reporters administration officials were communicating with dissenting senators whose arguments were largely based on legal technicalities rather than policy differences: “If you look at the people who actually voted, every single one of them have supported the administration’s plan.” Vance argued further that “the 1973 War Powers Resolution (PL 93 – 184) is ‘fake and unconstitutional'” so this vote would not affect foreign policy decisions soon.
Some Republicans remained skeptical about limiting presidential powers but did not rule out future legislative action if circumstances change. Senator Thom Tillis said revitalizing Venezuela requires a long-term approach but added: “if we start seeing a pattern of behavior that does involve use or threat of force then we have to revisit war powers.”
On Capitol Hill’s other side, House Democrats are preparing their own version of a war powers resolution regarding Venezuela; Representative Jim McGovern plans to introduce it soon after sponsoring a similar effort last December that failed.
At a news conference McGovern stated: “We are all pleased by results in Senate… But when it comes putting American troops harm’s way Congress is charge… And that’s not me saying that it’s Constitution.”
There are questions over whether such resolutions would legally bind executive action due to constitutional issues raised by past Supreme Court rulings like INS v. Chadha (1983), which found legislative vetoes unconstitutional unless presented for presidential signature—a requirement concurrent resolutions do not meet under current law.
A Congressional Research Service report from June 2025 noted only joint resolutions enjoy expedited procedures for withdrawal under war powers statutes; even then House leaders can control consideration unless forced by discharge petition requiring majority signatures.
Despite these hurdles some legal analysts argue war powers cases may differ from typical legislative veto scenarios because they relate directly to congressional authority over military deployments.
_____
Savannah Behrmann, Mark Satter, Hunter Savery and Daniel Hillburn contributed reporting.
Tribune National
This story was originally published January 8, 2026 at 5:36 PM.
