Senate Bid to Limit Trump‘s Military action in Venezuela Fails
WASHINGTON – A bipartisan effort in the U.S. Senate to require congressional approval before any military action against Venezuela failed on Thursday,highlighting a growing debate over presidential authority in modern warfare. The resolution, Senate Joint Resolution 90 (SJRes.90), was aimed at preventing former President Donald Trump from initiating hostilities with Venezuela without explicit authorization from congress.
The failed resolution underscores a deepening fracture in Washington regarding the limits of presidential power in military affairs and Congress’s oversight role in an era of long-distance drone warfare. Proponents argued that the Trump management’s consideration of military options, particularly those utilizing drones, did not necessitate a formal declaration of war but still warranted congressional consultation. Opponents countered that the president possesses the constitutional authority to protect U.S. interests without seeking prior legislative approval, even in the context of drone strikes.
Senators Tim Kaine and Rand paul spearheaded the effort, arguing that the potential for military intervention, even through remote means, demanded congressional oversight.They characterized the administration’s justification – that drone strikes do not constitute “hostilities” requiring congressional authorization – as “arbitrary and hazardous.”
This wasn’t the first attempt by Kaine and Paul to assert congressional authority. A similar resolution seeking to halt bombing ships in the Caribbean was blocked by Republicans in october. The thursday vote was viewed by SJRes. 90’s supporters as a crucial test of Congress’s willingness to check executive power.
Signatory organizations to the resolution warned that “future generations will remember who opposed an needless war and who helped pave the way for it,” framing the vote as a defining moment in the debate over war powers.
The outcome of the vote signals continued resistance to limiting presidential discretion in military matters, despite growing concerns about the scope of executive authority in the age of modern warfare.
