Credited from: SCMP
On January 14, the U.S. Senate Republicans successfully blocked a war powers resolution intended to limit President Trump’s ability to engage in military actions in Venezuela without congressional authorization. The vote concluded with a narrow margin of 51-50, and Vice President JD Vance cast the tie-breaking vote. This action followed a previous procedural move where five Republican senators allied with Democrats to advance the resolution, prompting a fierce backlash from President Trump, who condemned those who opposed him as "losers," according to CBS News, Los Angeles Times, Reuters, South China Morning Post, and NPR.
Initially, the resolution gained traction following a surprise military operation where U.S. troops captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. This action, however, prompted concerns among lawmakers from both parties about the implications of Trump’s military authority. Majority Leader John Thune argued that the war powers resolution was unnecessary as there were no ongoing hostilities, highlighting the GOP’s stance that undermining Trump’s military decisions could show weakness, according to Los Angeles Times and Reuters.
Despite the initial bipartisan support for the resolution, two Republican senators, Josh Hawley and Todd Young, shifted their votes under pressure from Trump and following reassurances from Secretary of State Marco Rubio about the absence of ground troops in Venezuela. They were told that any future military actions would require congressional consultation. Hawley and Young's switch left only three GOP senators—Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, and Rand Paul—supporting the resolution, according to CBS News, Los Angeles Times, South China Morning Post, and NPR.
The defeat of the resolution marks a significant moment in the ongoing struggle within Congress to reclaim its war powers, especially amid growing concerns over Trump's expanding military ambitions. Despite this setback, Senate Democrats have pledged to continue pursuing such measures, indicating the potential for further conflict over military policy in the future, according to Los Angeles Times and Reuters.