U.S. Senate Rejects Resolution to Limit Trump’s War Powers on Venezuela
He emphasized that the resolution was not about undermining President Trump personally but about holding him accountable.
Two Republican senators, Rand Paul and Lisa Murkowski, broke ranks to join Democrats in voting to support the measure. Photo/Courtesy
By Joylyne lopokoit
On Thursday, November 6, 2025, the United States Senate voted down a bipartisan proposal that sought to limit President Donald Trump’s ability to conduct military operations against Venezuela without prior approval by Congress.
The bipartisan resolution aimed to reassert Congress’s constitutional role under the 1973 War Powers Resolution, which empowers Congress to authorize acts of war. But the Senate rejected amendment 56–44, a move that essentially preserved the extensive executive war powers of the president. Just two Republican senators, Rand Paul and Lisa Murkowski, broke ranks to join Democrats in voting to support the measure.
The vote came amid increased U.S. military activity in the southern Caribbean and off the coast of Venezuelan territory. Washington has been carrying out a spate of air strikes against small vessels in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific since early September 2025, claiming they were linked to a narcotics-trafficking network. The operations have since expanded to include naval deployments and air patrols off Venezuela amid concern about a possible escalation into direct conflict.
The U.S. government has defended the strikes as lawful and integral in combating transnational drug cartels, branding the initiative a campaign against “narco-terrorists.” But the operations also have their critics on both sides of the political divide, who have termed them reckless, legally questionable, and potentially destabilizing for the region.
“No single president should have the authority to take the nation to war without congressional debate and approval,” said Democratic Senator Tim Kaine. He emphasized that the resolution was not about undermining President Trump personally but about holding him accountable and making sure that power was not abused in the future.
By contrast, Republican legislators felt that restraints on presidential powers could hamper the nation’s ability to effectively respond swiftly to emergent threats from hostile regimes.
Unresolved political and legal debates about such demarcation leave little clarity as to whether such situations will descend into a state of general conflict or be defused through diplomatic means.
About Author
