Senate’s War Powers Showdown After Trump’s Venezuela Strikes and Maduro Capture

In a historic confrontation over war powers, the U.S. Senate – in a rare bipartisan move – is pushing to curb President Donald Trump’s unilateral military action in Venezuela. This escalating constitutional clash follows the dramatic U.S. raid that captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and a series of U.S. missile strikes in and around Caracas. Lawmakers from both parties are seeking to rein in what they view as presidential overreach, citing Congress’s authority to declare war and the 1973 War Powers Resolution as legal grounds for intervention. The effort comes amid contentious rhetoric from Trump about “running Venezuela” and exploiting its vast oil reserves – remarks that critics say carry an imperial undertone and have intensified the political fallout at home and abroad.

Pedestrians walk past destroyed shipping containers at Venezuela’s La Guaira port after a series of U.S. military strikes on Jan. 3, 2026. The overnight operation that seized Nicolás Maduro included multiple explosions in Caracas and assaults on military sites, sparking bipartisan alarm in Washington over President Trump’s expansive use of force.

Senate Acts to Check Trump’s Venezuela War Powers

In the wake of Maduro’s capture, the U.S. Senate advanced a war powers resolution that would bar President Trump from further military action in Venezuela without explicit congressional approval. The procedural vote – 52 to 47 in favor – marked a rare rebuke of the President by members of his own party. “None of us should want this president, or any president, to take our sons and daughters to war without notice, consultation, debate and vote in Congress,” said Senator Tim Kaine, a chief sponsor of the measure, celebrating the bipartisan support for reasserting Congress’s role. Five Republican senators broke ranks to join all Democrats, narrowly overcoming GOP leadership’s opposition and signaling broad concern over Trump’s actions in Venezuela.

The resolution, co-sponsored by Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, underscores Congress’s constitutional authority over war. It explicitly prohibits U.S. armed forces from conducting “hostilities within or against Venezuela” without a declaration of war or specific authorization from lawmakers. Lawmakers were especially jolted by the administration’s sudden escalation – a special forces raid in Caracas and missile strikes that knocked out parts of the capital’s power grid – launched with minimal notice to Congress. Many in Congress felt blindsided and misled after senior officials had assured them just weeks earlier that regime change or strikes on Venezuelan territory were not planned. Maduro’s seizure has stoked fears of a prolonged, potentially open-ended intervention, prompting legislators to act before the situation snowballs into a new war.

However, the push faces steep hurdles. Even if the war powers resolution passes the Senate and the Republican-led House, Trump is all but certain to veto it, meaning it would require two-thirds majorities in both chambers to override. Similar efforts to restrain Trump’s military initiatives have faltered in the past. (Notably, in 2020 a bipartisan war powers measure to limit Trump’s actions against Iran passed Congress but failed to survive his veto.) Still, the Senate’s latest vote is a significant symbolic assertion of congressional oversight. It highlights growing unease – even among Trump’s allies – about entrusting one president with unchecked authority over war and peace.

Constitutional Clash: War-Making Powers and the 1973 Resolution

At the heart of this standoff is a fundamental question: Who decides when America goes to war? The U.S. Constitution divides war powers between the branches – Congress has the sole power to declare war and fund the military, while the President is the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. For much of U.S. history, this balance has been tested whenever presidents initiated military interventions without an official declaration of war. From Harry Truman’s commitment of troops to Korea in 1950 to the long, undeclared Vietnam War, presidents increasingly pushed the limits of unilateral action, blurring the lines of authority.

In response, and amid outrage over President Nixon’s secret bombings of Cambodia, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution of 1973 over Nixon’s veto. This landmark law – often called the War Powers Act – was designed to “insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President” applies to the introduction of U.S. forces into hostilities. Under the War Powers Resolution, the President must notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying troops into combat and cannot keep forces engaged in conflict for more than 60 days (plus a 30-day withdrawal period) without congressional authorization or a declaration of war. The intent was to prevent another Vietnam-style scenario where a president could entangle the nation in a protracted war without lawmakers’ consent.

Text of the War Powers Resolution of 1973 (Public Law 93-148). Enacted over President Nixon’s veto, the law requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of military action and withdraw forces after 60 days absent congressional approval. It was meant to reassert Congress’s constitutional authority to declare war following the unchecked conflicts in Korea and Vietnam.

Since its passage, the War Powers Act itself has been a point of friction. Presidents of both parties have often regarded the law as an unconstitutional constraint on executive power. In practice, they file the required reports but rarely concede that Congress can mandate troop withdrawals. President Trump openly shares this view – after the Senate vote, he blasted the war powers measure and declared on Truth Social that the War Powers Act “is Unconstitutional, totally violating Article II of the Constitution, as all Presidents, and their Departments of Justice, have determined before me.” Trump argued the five Republican senators who sided with Democrats “should never be elected to office again,” accusing them of trying to “take away our Powers to fight and defend the United States.” The President’s defiant response encapsulates the long-running executive vs. legislative tug-of-war: every commander-in-chief seeks maximal flexibility to respond to threats, while Congress seeks to check what it sees as the ever-expanding scope of the “Imperial Presidency.”

Trump’s Imperial Rhetoric: Oil, Regime Change and Political Fallout

The political firestorm over Venezuela is intensified by President Trump’s own words. In a triumphant press conference at Mar-a-Lago after the raid, Trump boasted that “We will run the country until such time as we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition.” He insisted the U.S. couldn’t risk someone unfit taking control in Caracas. Flanked by Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Trump offered few specifics on how this U.S. stewardship of Venezuela would work. But he did reveal one priority: oil. “As part of the takeover, major U.S. oil companies would move into Venezuela,” Trump said, vowing to revive the country’s dilapidated oil infrastructure. He repeatedly returned to the idea that Venezuela’s vast petroleum riches – the world’s largest proven reserves – should benefit the U.S. effort. In fact, Trump assured Americans that a prolonged presence “won’t cost us a penny” because “money coming out of the ground” (oil revenues) would reimburse U.S. expenses.

Such remarks sent a jolt through Washington and Latin America alike. Critics said Trump’s conspicuous focus on Venezuela’s oil laid bare an imperial subtext to the operation. What the administration had initially framed as a law-and-order mission to bring a “narco-terrorist” to justice started to look more like a classic regime-change intervention motivated by oil and geopolitics. Trump’s reference to reviving the Monroe Doctrine – even quipping that an updated version could be called the “Donroe Doctrine” – did little to dispel the impression of American imperialism at play. For many in Latin America, the imagery was unmistakable. Trump’s rhetoric harkened back to a long history of U.S. meddling in the hemisphere, from gunboat diplomacy in the early 1900s to Cold War-era coups. As if to prove the point, leaders across the region reacted sharply: Mexico’s president condemned the intervention, Brazil’s President Lula da Silva said the U.S. had crossed an unacceptable line, while others warned that Washington was reviving painful memories of past American overreach. Even U.S. allies elsewhere – Russia and China, staunch backers of Maduro – blasted the operation as a violation of international law and sovereignty.

At home, Trump’s bold claims also sparked political backlash and uncomfortable questions. His promise that oil would pay for a foreign occupation drew parallels to the 2003 Iraq War, when U.S. officials confidently – and erroneously – suggested Iraq’s oil would cover reconstruction costs. Democrats seized on Trump’s open-ended commitment in Venezuela as evidence of reckless adventurism. “The president is openly signaling a long-term military and financial commitment abroad with no authorization, with no plan – another endless war,” warned Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer. Prominent critics, like Democratic Congressman Ruben Gallego, slammed the Venezuela operation as “the second unjustified war in my lifetime… illegal” and said the U.S. had turned from world cop to “world bully”. Such harsh condemnations underscore the political risk for Trump: by plunging into Venezuela, he has handed ammunition to opponents who accuse him of betraying his “America First” aversion to foreign entanglements.

Notably, some of Trump’s own base and party have shown unease. The five GOP senators who voted to restrain his Venezuela moves are just the tip of the iceberg. Hardline Trump ally Marjorie Taylor Greene voiced alarm, saying many in the MAGA movement thought they voted to end “endless wars” and lamenting, “Boy were we wrong.” And Senator Josh Hawley – a usually loyal Trump supporter with 2028 presidential ambitions – broke with the President on this issue, pointedly arguing that if Trump “feels the need to put boots on the ground…Congress would need to vote on it”. Trump’s reaction was furious: he denounced Hawley and others as disloyal and suggested their dissent was political posturing. Regardless of motive, the spectacle of Trump attacking Republicans for siding with Congress highlights a schism in the GOP. On one side are traditional hawks and Trump loyalists who applaud taking down a hostile dictator; on the other are constitutional conservatives and populists skeptical of more military adventures. Trump’s fiery Truth Social broadsides – calling out Senators Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Rand Paul, Hawley, and Todd Young by name – may only intensify scrutiny of his Venezuela agenda.

National Security vs. ‘Endless War’ – Competing Narratives

The Trump administration defends the Venezuela operation as a bold and necessary move for U.S. national security. White House officials emphasize that Maduro was a indicted criminal– charged in U.S. courts with narco-terrorism and weapons offenses – and that removing him neutralizes a threat on America’s doorstep. They frame the Caracas raid as a “law enforcement action” rather than an act of war, noting that U.S. Special Forces extracted Maduro to face trial on existing charges, akin to apprehending a drug kingpin. According to this view, Trump acted within his powers as Commander-in-Chief to carry out a limited strike and arrest, protecting the troops involved by suppressing potential resistance. Republican allies like Senator Tom Cotton argue Maduro was not just a usurping dictator but “ran a vast drug-trafficking operation,” and praise his capture as delivering justice. They also point out that no formal “war” has been declared – implying that the War Powers Resolution shouldn’t even be triggered because, in their opinion, the U.S. is not engaged in sustained hostilities or an occupation of Venezuela.

Opponents, however, see a slippery slope toward another open-ended conflict. They question the administration’s claim that no further action is anticipated, especially in light of Trump’s own comments welcoming the idea of U.S. “boots on the ground” in Venezuela if needed. Skeptics note that over 15,000 U.S. troops, along with an aircraft carrier, had been positioned around Venezuela for months and that the strike on Caracas followed a steady build-up of military pressure – including attacks on alleged drug shipments at sea and even a prior strike on a dock facility. To critics, these are telltale signs of a campaign that could expand. “The removal of Maduro… could open a power vacuum in the country,” Reuters observed, with no clear plan for who or what fills the void. Venezuela’s armed forces remain intact under Maduro’s allies, and any U.S. attempt to “run” the country or install a new government could meet fierce resistance or devolve into nation-building. The ghosts of Iraq and Afghanistan loom large: both began with “decapitation” of regimes and optimistic promises of quick exits, but morphed into years-long quagmires. “This is what many in MAGA thought they voted to end,” Congresswoman Greene scolded, invoking the endless wars that Trump himself once railed against.

Financially, the stakes are high as well. President Trump has called for boosting U.S. defense spending to an eye-popping $1.5 trillion (from $1 trillion) in the wake of the Venezuela operation. Supporters argue that a show of strength is needed to deter other adversaries, but budget hawks and war skeptics within the GOP blanch at the prospect of pouring resources into a Latin American intervention with no defined endgame. With U.S. deficits already soaring, many Republicans are wary of a new military commitment that could drain billions. “Many [in the GOP] may be wary of a prolonged and expensive campaign of government change in Venezuela,” noted one analysis, especially as the 2026 midterm elections approach. Public opinion, too, may not be on Trump’s side – polls show Americans’ top concern is inflation and the economy, not foreign conflicts. Engaging in a discretionary war in South America, critics warn, risks political blowback akin to past unpopular wars, as well as diverting attention and resources from pressing issues at home.

In sum, the administration insists it is eliminating a narco-dictator and making the U.S. safer, while opponents counter that Trump is plunging headlong into an unauthorized war of choice. This debate will intensify as Congress deliberates on the war powers resolution and as events unfold on the ground in Venezuela. The coming weeks will test whether Trump’s bold gamble will be viewed as a decisive blow against a tyrant – or the first step into a costly geopolitical misadventure that even his own party won’t support.

Timeline: Key U.S. War Powers Clashes

To put the current standoff in context, here’s a brief historical timeline of major confrontations over U.S. war-making authority – highlighting how presidents and Congress have collided over the power to wage war:

● 2026 – Venezuela Operation: Now, President Trump’s decision to launch military strikes in Venezuela and capture Maduro – without congressional authorization – has led to the latest war powers showdown. The Senate’s January 2026 vote advancing a resolution to halt further hostilities in Venezuela is the culmination of decades of tension between the executive’s desire for flexibility and Congress’s demand for oversight. Whether this results in a binding law or another presidential veto, it represents a defining test of the War Powers Resolution in modern times.

FAQ: Trump, War Powers, and the Venezuela Crisis

Q: What did President Trump do in Venezuela to spark this war powers debate?
A: In early January 2026, President Trump ordered a large-scale military operation in Venezuela without prior congressional approval. In a surprise pre-dawn raid, U.S. special forces seized Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro and his wife from Caracas, and flew them to New York to face U.S. criminal charges. The operation was accompanied by missile strikes and explosions in the capital – knocking out power in parts of Caracas and hitting military targets – as well as naval attacks on alleged drug-smuggling vessels off Venezuela’s coast. Trump later held a press conference declaring the mission a success and even said the United States would “run” Venezuela temporarily until a new government is established. This unprecedented action – effectively a unilateral use of force against a foreign regime – triggered bipartisan concern in Congress about the President circumventing their authority to declare war.

Q: What exactly is the Senate’s war powers resolution regarding Venezuela?
A: It’s a legislative measure (invoking the War Powers Resolution of 1973) that aims to restrict President Trump’s ability to continue military operations in Venezuela without Congress’s consent. In practical terms, the resolution directs that U.S. Armed Forces must cease hostilities against Venezuela (or in its territory) unless Congress explicitly authorizes them via a declaration of war or a specific Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). The Senate advanced this resolution with a 52-47 vote, as a coalition of all Democrats and five key Republicans backed it. The intent is to reinforce the constitutional requirement that prolonged or significant military engagements receive Congressional approval. If enacted, it would legally mandate that President Trump stop any further military action in Venezuela beyond defensive measures, unless lawmakers give the green light.

Q: How does the War Powers Resolution of 1973 work, and does it apply here?
A: The War Powers Resolution (WPR) was passed in 1973 to prevent presidents from waging undeclared wars. Under the WPR, the President can send U.S. forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities only under certain conditions (like a declaration of war, specific statutory authorization, or a national emergency caused by an attack on the U.S.). Even then, the President must notify Congress within 48 hours of committing troops, detailing the scope and justification. If Congress does not approve the intervention, the President must withdraw forces within 60 days (with a possible 30-day extension for safe withdrawal). In the Venezuela case, President Trump did notify Congress after the fact (reportedly framing the Caracas raid as a counter-narcotics operation). However, because Congress has not authorized sustained hostilities in Venezuela, lawmakers argue that the 60-day clock is ticking for Trump to seek approval or wind down military involvement. The Senate’s resolution is essentially Congress formally asserting its WPR rights – stating that without authorization, Trump cannot continue military operations in Venezuela. Trump, meanwhile, contends that the WPR is unconstitutional and that his actions don’t constitute a “war” requiring approval.

Q: Is President Trump allowed to use military force without Congress in this situation?
A: This is the crux of the constitutional conflict. The President can use limited force without Congress in certain cases, but there’s a lot of debate over the scope. As Commander-in-Chief, the President has authority to repel sudden attacks or conduct short-term military missions, especially to protect American lives or interests. The Trump administration argues the Maduro raid was a one-off law enforcement action, targeting an indicted drug-trafficker, and thus within executive powers. They also claim it was not an act of war against the Venezuelan state, but rather an arrest operation with military support – akin to how Special Forces might snatch a terrorist abroad. If truly “limited” and completed, presidents often assert such actions are permissible. However, if U.S. military engagement continues (e.g. holding territory, combat with Venezuelan forces, occupation duty), then under both the Constitution and the War Powers Act, Congress’s approval is required. Congress alone can declare war, and extensive hostilities without sign-off would violate the law. In short, while Trump had some unilateral latitude for a swift strike, any prolonged military campaign or escalation in Venezuela without Congress would overstep constitutional bounds – which is exactly what lawmakers are warning against. That’s why the bipartisan group in the Senate is moving to explicitly prohibit further unapproved military action by the President in Venezuela.

Q: How have past presidents and Congress handled this kind of war powers dispute?
A: There’s a long history of tussles. Generally, presidents tend to push the envelope on deploying force, and Congress sometimes pushes back. For example, President Obama’s 2011 intervention in Libya went past 60 days with no Congress authorization, leading to angry hearings but no immediate penalties. President Clinton’s 1999 Kosovo air war likewise saw Congress split, but he continued the campaign regardless. Earlier, Ronald Reagan in the 1980s sent forces to places like Grenada and Beirut with only after-the-fact or partial congressional involvement. In many of these cases, Congress protested or passed non-binding resolutions, but didn’t actually cut off funds. The War Powers Resolution itself has never decisively forced a president’s hand to withdraw troops – partly because presidents from both parties assert it’s not binding on them. However, there have been notable confrontations: in 1975, Congress used funding power to enforce the end of the Vietnam War and prohibited combat in Cambodia. More recently, in 2019 and 2020, Congress did pass War Powers resolutions (on Yemen and Iran) to limit Trump’s actions – but he vetoed them. Congress lacked the supermajority to override those vetoes. The bottom line is that historically, unless Congress is united enough to block funding or override a veto, presidents have usually prevailed in these showdowns. The current Venezuela episode is testing whether today’s Congress is willing to go further in defense of its prerogatives.

Q: What are the stakes of this conflict continuing – could the U.S. be headed for a wider war?
A: The stakes are high both constitutionally and on the ground. If hostilities continue in Venezuela without a political resolution, the U.S. could find itself drawn into a protracted military engagement in Latin America. Venezuela’s government (now led in Maduro’s absence by his allies) has vowed to resist what it calls a U.S. “kidnapping” of its president. There’s potential for guerilla warfare, civil conflict within Venezuela, or proxy interference by countries like Russia, Cuba, or Iran which oppose U.S. actions. A wider war isn’t guaranteed – it’s possible that removing Maduro could lead to a negotiated transition – but Trump’s own statements about not fearing a long-term presence and being open to “boots on the ground” raise the prospect of deeper involvement. For Americans, that could mean U.S. troops in combat abroad, casualties, and heavy costs. Domestically, if Trump ignores Congress and presses on, it sets a precedent expanding presidential war powers even further, effectively neutering the 1973 War Powers Act. It would also trigger a major constitutional crisis between the executive and legislative branches. Conversely, if Congress succeeds (either through legislation or public pressure) in compelling a drawdown, it would be a historic re-assertion of congressional authority over war – possibly influencing how future presidents approach military interventions. Politically, Trump is gambling that a quick “win” in Venezuela will be popular, but if it drags out, it could become a quagmire that harms U.S. credibility and his own standing. In short, the stakes involve not only the fate of Venezuela and regional stability, but the balance of power in U.S. government and the principle that American wars require the people’s representatives’ consent.

Q: What happens next with the war powers resolution – will it actually become law?
A: The Senate’s approval was just a first step. Next, the resolution moves to the House of Representatives. The House is led by Republicans allied with Trump, and Speaker Mike Johnson has signaled opposition to the measure. If the House blocks it or refuses to take it up, the effort could stall. Even if the House were to pass it (which would require nearly half of House Republicans joining Democrats), President Trump has made it clear he would veto the resolution. Overriding a veto needs a two-thirds vote in both chambers – a very high bar that would require significantly more Republicans to defy the President. At the moment, that level of opposition within Trump’s party isn’t evident. So, realistically, the war powers resolution may not become a binding law due to partisan dynamics. However, its advancement is still highly significant. It puts political pressure on the administration and serves as a public rebuke of Trump’s handling of Venezuela. In the past, even unsuccessful war powers votes (like the 2020 Iran resolution) have sent strong signals that can influence a president’s calculus. It’s possible Trump might temper further actions in Venezuela to avoid alienating more of his party or the public. In summary, while the resolution faces an uphill battle to enactment, the issue is far from over – and how Trump and Congress proceed in the coming weeks will determine whether this constitutional confrontation escalates or finds some resolution.

Q: Why are Venezuela’s oil reserves mentioned so often in this debate?
A: Venezuela sits on the world’s largest proven oil reserves, and its oil industry has been the backbone of its economy (and, under Maduro, a source of intense corruption and mismanagement). President Trump has explicitly tied U.S. interest in Venezuela to its oil resources – promising that American oil companies will help refurbish Venezuelan oil fields, and suggesting that oil profits can reimburse U.S. costs. To Trump’s supporters, leveraging Venezuela’s oil could stabilize the country and benefit both nations. But to critics, such statements confirm their worst suspicions: that the military intervention is driven not purely by security or humanitarian concerns, but by an imperial-style quest for oil and influence. This “Venezuela oil military action” narrative has fueled opposition domestically and abroad, with many pointing out that U.S. interventions have often occurred in oil-rich regions. The emphasis on oil bolsters the argument that Congress should be involved – to ensure U.S. forces aren’t being used to secure resources without public debate, and to question the true objectives of the operation. In the court of public opinion, the oil angle makes the Venezuela venture more controversial, reminding people of past wars (like Iraq) where oil was a subtext. Thus, oil is a key word in this saga – it’s at the center of Trump’s pitch for the operation and the criticism against it. Congress members have specifically cited Trump’s oil comments as troubling, implying a profit motive and long-term entanglement rather than a limited security mission.

Sources: Reuters, AP News, PBS NewsHour, ABC News, Congressional records, and others for factual reporting and quotes. The information reflects the situation as of January 2026, following the U.S. military’s actions in Venezuela and the ensuing political responses.