The United States Senate is set to conduct a third vote on a war powers resolution aimed at restricting President Donald Trump‘s ability to take military action against Venezuela. This decision follows a controversial operation that resulted in the capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro and his wife. The raid, which took place late last week, caught both Maduro and members of Congress off guard, intensifying the debate over the administration’s military strategy in the region.
Trump’s actions have been characterized as unilateral, with the President hinting at a prolonged U.S. military presence in Venezuela. Following the strikes on September 2, 2024, which targeted alleged drug-smuggling operations, Trump stated that the U.S. would oversee the country’s oil sales and governance for the foreseeable future.
Senator Tim Kaine, a Democrat from Virginia, introduced the latest resolution early in December 2023. This measure seeks to mandate the withdrawal of U.S. Armed Forces from hostilities in Venezuela that lack Congressional authorization. On the Senate floor, Kaine expressed concern about the implications of the military actions, asserting, “The indication from the administration is that this is not a few days or a few weeks; it’s likely a few years of U.S. occupation and involvement in this country.”
Despite Kaine’s efforts, the resolution is likely to face significant opposition, similar to two previous attempts to limit military action that failed to gain sufficient support. Administration officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, briefed lawmakers on the recent operations in the region, although many Democrats left the meetings dissatisfied with the answers provided regarding future actions.
The recent military strikes and Maduro’s apprehension have raised alarms among legal experts and members of Congress. Some lawmakers have accused the Trump administration of committing war crimes and of misleading the public regarding intentions for regime change. Senator Rand Paul, the only Republican co-sponsor of Kaine’s resolution, remarked, “I think bombing a capital and removing the head of state is by all definitions, war.”
Complicating the legal landscape, Trump administration officials have referred to the operation to capture Maduro as a “law enforcement” initiative, thereby asserting that it did not require Congressional approval. Trump stated that the U.S. is now effectively in control of Venezuela, a stance defended by some Republicans who argue that the President’s actions fall within his constitutional authority.
Senate Majority Leader Mike Johnson, a Republican from Louisiana, reiterated this viewpoint following a classified briefing. “This is not a regime change. This is a demand for change of behavior by a regime,” he stated. Johnson emphasized that the U.S. is not engaged in a war in Venezuela despite the military actions taken.
The context of U.S. military involvement has included a series of operations targeting vessels linked to Venezuelan oil shipments. In the days leading up to Maduro’s capture, Trump escalated his pressure campaign by seizing two sanctioned oil tankers. More recently, the U.S. conducted additional operations to intercept vessels associated with Venezuela, raising questions about the broader strategy.
Senator Thom Tillis, a Republican from North Carolina, suggested that if the U.S. could successfully seize large vessels, it could also target smaller boats allegedly involved in drug smuggling. He noted, “I would take note, if we can take a big ship like this, we may be able to take a few boats too, without blowing them out of the water.”
Critics of the military actions, including Paul, have highlighted concerns over due process. Paul shared a letter from the U.S. Coast Guard, which revealed that many of the suspected drug-smuggling vessels intercepted by the military were found to have no illegal cargo. The letter noted that between September 1, 2024, and October 7, 2025, out of 212 total interdictions, 41 boats had “no illicit contraband on board.”
The Trump administration has justified its military operations by framing them as part of a broader conflict against drug cartels designated as terrorist organizations. The White House claims that the drugs trafficked by these groups pose a significant threat to American lives. Nonetheless, the legal justification for the strikes remains classified, raising further concerns among lawmakers who argue that the rationale is insufficient for the actions taken.
In December, Trump signed an executive order designating fentanyl as a “weapon of mass destruction,” a move interpreted by some as an attempt to bolster justifications for military intervention in Venezuela. Notably, fentanyl was not mentioned in the charges against Maduro.
As the Senate prepares for the upcoming vote, the implications of U.S. military actions in Venezuela remain a contentious issue, with potential long-term consequences for both domestic policy and international relations.
