The U.S. Senate is poised to conduct a third vote on a war powers resolution designed to restrict President Donald Trump‘s capacity to engage militarily in Venezuela. This move follows the recent capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro and his wife during a nighttime operation that reportedly took Congress by surprise. The resolution aims to impose limits on the President’s unilateral military actions following a series of strikes against the South American nation.
The proposed resolution, introduced by Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, seeks to mandate the withdrawal of U.S. Armed Forces from any hostilities in Venezuela that lack Congressional authorization. Kaine expressed concerns regarding the duration of U.S. involvement, suggesting it could extend for years. “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,” he stated during a Senate floor speech.
Despite previous attempts, including two unsuccessful efforts by Kaine to limit military action in the region, the latest resolution is expected to face significant hurdles without additional support from Republican lawmakers. Trump’s administration has defended its actions, arguing they fall within the President’s constitutional authority. Notably, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth briefed top lawmakers on the situation in Venezuela shortly after the strikes.
Concerns have been raised about the legal ramifications of the U.S. military’s actions. Critics, including Senator Rand Paul, argue that the operation to capture Maduro constitutes an act of war. “I think bombing a capital and removing the head of state is by all definitions, war,” Paul remarked, emphasizing the need for Congressional oversight.
In the lead-up to Maduro’s capture, the Trump administration intensified its pressure campaign, seizing two sanctioned oil tankers linked to Venezuela. Following these events, the U.S. executed additional operations to seize two more vessels. Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina noted the potential for further actions against smaller boats allegedly involved in drug smuggling.
Critics of the military actions have pointed to a letter from the U.S. Coast Guard, revealing that many vessels interdicted during military operations were found to be carrying no illegal drugs. Of the 212 vessels intercepted between September 1, 2024, and October 7, 2025, 41 were reported to have no contraband on board. This raises questions about the justification for military strikes in the region.
The administration has claimed that the situation constitutes a “non-international armed conflict” with designated terrorist organizations involved in drug trafficking. This rationale is intended to classify the actions as defensive measures against what it describes as an armed attack on U.S. citizens. However, the legal opinion supporting this assertion remains classified, prompting calls from lawmakers for its release.
In December 2025, Trump signed an executive order designating fentanyl as a “weapon of mass destruction,” potentially aiming to further justify military intervention in Venezuela. Notably, fentanyl was not mentioned in the indictment against Maduro, which raises additional questions about the administration’s motivations.
As the Senate votes again on this critical issue, the implications of U.S. military action in Venezuela remain a contentious topic, highlighting the ongoing debate about the balance of power between the executive branch and Congress in matters of war and peace.
