Should Congress Reassert Its War Powers Over Venezuela?
January 7, 2026 by
On January 3, 2026, U.S. military forces conducted overnight strikes in Caracas, the capital city of Venezuela, capturing President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores. President Donald Trump announced the operation from Mar-a-Lago, declaring that the United States would “run” Venezuela “until such time as we can do a safe, proper, and judicious transition.” Maduro was transported to New York, where he faces a 2020 federal indictment on charges including narco-terrorism conspiracy and cocaine importation.
The operation has reignited a longstanding constitutional debate: What role should Congress play in authorizing military action abroad? This week, the Senate will vote on a bipartisan war powers resolution sponsored by Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), and Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) that would block further military action in Venezuela without congressional approval.
What Is the War Powers Resolution?
The War Powers Resolution of 1973 was enacted by Congress over President Richard Nixon’s veto following revelations about secret military operations during the Vietnam War, including unauthorized bombings in Cambodia. The law was designed to ensure that “the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President” would apply to decisions about committing U.S. Armed Forces to hostilities abroad.
The resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying troops into situations involving hostilities and prohibits U.S. Armed Forces from remaining engaged for more than 60 days without congressional authorization. Since 1973, presidents have submitted over 130 reports to Congress under the resolution, though debates about its application and constitutionality have persisted across administrations.
What Is Being Proposed?
The current war powers resolution (S.J.Res.90) would direct the president to terminate the use of U.S. Armed Forces for hostilities within or against Venezuela unless explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or specific authorization for use of military force. The resolution is “privileged,” meaning Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) cannot prevent it from coming to the floor for a vote.
A similar resolution failed in November 2025 by a vote of 49-51, with only Sens. Paul and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) joining Democrats in support. Sponsors hope the events of this weekend will persuade additional Republicans to support the measure.
Arguments in Favor of Passing the Resolution
Supporters of the resolution emphasize constitutional principles, congressional authority, and concerns about precedent.
- Constitutional Authority: Sen. Kaine has been a vocal advocate for congressional war powers. “It’s time for Congress to get its a– off the couch and do what the Constitution mandates that we do,” he said. “We have to put this before the American people, not just in private settings, but in public hearings.” Sen. Kaine called President Trump’s unauthorized military action “a sickening return to a day when the United States asserted the right to dominate the internal political affairs of all nations in the Western Hemisphere.”
- Bipartisan Concerns About Executive Overreach: Sen. Paul, a libertarian-leaning Republican, has consistently supported war powers resolutions regardless of which party holds the presidency. “The American people do not want to be dragged into endless war with Venezuela without public debate or a vote,” Sen. Paul said. “We ought to defend what the Constitution demands: deliberation before war.”
- Questions About Legal Authority: Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) questioned the administration’s legal justification. “If this action were constitutionally sound, the Attorney General wouldn’t be tweeting that they’ve arrested the President of a sovereign country and his wife for possessing guns in violation of a 1934 U.S. firearm law,” he wrote. On the House floor, Rep. Massie invoked James Madison’s warning that “to the extent that war-making power devolves to one person, liberty dissolves.”
- International Law Concerns: Legal scholars and international bodies have raised questions about the operation’s legality. United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres said he was “deeply alarmed” and warned that “these developments constitute a dangerous precedent.” Mary Ellen O’Connell, a professor at Notre Dame Law School, told NBC News that the operation effectively amounts to a “kidnapping” that “violates core principles of the United Nations Charter.” Chatham House, a British foreign policy think tank, concluded that “it is difficult to conceive of possible legal justifications” for the operation under international law.
- Concerns About Precedent: Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.), while praising the operation, expressed concern that “Russia will use this to justify their illegal and barbaric military actions against Ukraine, or China to justify an invasion of Taiwan.” French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot said the operation “contravenes the principle of non-use of force, which underpins international law.”
Arguments Against Passing the Resolution
Opponents of the resolution point to executive authority, the nature of the operation, and national security considerations.
- Law Enforcement, Not War: Secretary of State Marco Rubio characterized the operation as a law enforcement action to arrest indicted fugitives, not an act of war. “At its core, this was an arrest of two indicted fugitives of American justice, and the Department of War supported the Department of Justice in that job,” Secretary Rubio said. He argued this distinction means congressional notification was unnecessary: “It’s just not the kind of mission that you can pre-notify because it endangers the mission.”
- Dealing with a Dictator and Drug Trafficker: President Trump defended the action by pointing to Maduro’s 2020 indictment on drug trafficking charges and his authoritarian rule. “Nicolás Maduro was a thug and an illegitimate leader of Venezuela, terrorizing and oppressing its people for far too long,” President Trump said. Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) argued, “Congress doesn’t need to be notified every time the executive branch is making an arrest.”
- Protecting American Interests: Vice President JD Vance defended the operation as protecting Americans from drug trafficking. “I understand the anxiety over the use of military force,” he wrote, “but are we just supposed to allow a communist to steal our stuff in our hemisphere and do nothing?” The administration has framed ongoing military actions against Venezuela as essential to combating narcotics flowing into the United States.
- Operational Security: President Trump indicated weeks before the operation that he would not brief lawmakers in advance because he was worried they would “leak.” Supporters argue that the sensitive nature of military operations sometimes requires secrecy that precludes prior congressional notification.
Broader Questions
The debate extends beyond this specific resolution to fundamental questions about American foreign policy and constitutional governance. Even some who support the outcome of the Venezuela operation have raised concerns about how it was conducted. As Rep. Massie asked on the House floor: “Do we truly believe that Nicolás Maduro will be replaced by a modern-day George Washington? How did that work out in Cuba, Libya, Iraq, or Syria?”
Meanwhile, the resolution faces long odds. Even if it passes the Senate, it would need approval by the House of Representatives and the president’s signature—or veto-proof majorities in both chambers—to become law.
Discussion Questions
- The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war and the president the role of commander in chief. How should these powers be balanced when responding to threats that may require quick action?
- The administration argues this was a law enforcement operation, not an act of war. Does this distinction matter for purposes of congressional authorization? Why or why not?
- Sen. Paul, a Republican, has joined Democrats in supporting war powers resolutions under both Democratic and Republican presidents. What does this suggest about whether war powers should be a partisan or nonpartisan issue?
- Legal scholars and international leaders have raised concerns that this operation sets a dangerous precedent. What precedents—positive or negative—might this action establish for future U.S. foreign policy or for other nations?
- Rep. Massie pointed to past U.S. interventions in Cuba, Libya, Iraq, and Syria that did not achieve their intended outcomes. How should past experiences with regime change inform current debates about military action?
- If you were a member of Congress, how would you vote on this resolution? What factors would guide your decision?
As always, we encourage you to join the discussion with your comments or questions below.
Sources
Featured Images: Copyright (c) 2025 Miha Creative/Shutterstock.
[1] NPR. “7 Takeaways from Trump’s Incursion into Venezuela.” 5 Jan. 2026.
[2] Fox News. “Kaine Tells Congress to ‘Get Its A– Off the Couch,’ Reclaim War Powers.” 5 Jan. 2026.
[3] The Hill. “Senate Voting Next Week on Resolution to Block Donald Trump’s Action in Venezuela.” 5 Jan. 2026.
[4] Sen. Tim Kaine. “Kaine, Paul, Schumer, & Schiff File War Powers Resolution on Venezuela.” Press Release. Dec. 2025.
[5] ABC News. “Republicans Largely Back Trump on Venezuela Action, Democrats Decry It as Unjustified.” 4 Jan. 2026.
[6] The Hill. “Rep. Thomas Massie Questions Legality of Trump’s Action in Venezuela.” 4 Jan. 2026.
[7] Chatham House. “The US Capture of President Nicolás Maduro—and Attacks on Venezuela—Have No Justification in International Law.” 4 Jan. 2026.
[8] UN News. “US Actions in Venezuela ‘Constitute a Dangerous Precedent’: Guterres.” 5 Jan. 2026.
[9] NBC News. “U.S. Allies and Foes Fear Maduro’s Capture Sets Precedent for More American Intervention.” 4 Jan. 2026.
[10] Atlantic Council. “Experts React: The US Just Captured Maduro. What’s Next for Venezuela and the Region?” 3 Jan. 2026.
[11] Congress.gov. “S.J.Res.90 – 119th Congress (2025-2026).”
[12] Congress.gov. “Understanding the War Powers Resolution.”
