WASHINGTON, DC – It has become a familiar pattern. The President of the United States takes unilateral military action abroad. Congress shrugs.
On Saturday, hours after U.S. forces abducted Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro, Senate Democrats pledged to introduce a new resolution to rein in U.S. President Donald Trump’s military actions.
Recommended stories
list of 4 itemsend of list
Chuck Schumer, the top Democrat in the chamber, said his party would push for a vote this week. No matter how you look at it, its chances of success remain high.
Since President Trump took office for a second term in 2025, Congress has considered multiple bills that would force him to seek Congressional approval before launching military strikes.
But the recent attack on Venezuela is a clear example of presidential overreach and, according to David Janofsky, acting director of the Constitution Project at the Government Oversight Project, is “a cry for Congressional action.”
Experts say it’s also one of the most obvious tests in recent history of whether Congress will continue to relinquish its authority to check U.S. military involvement overseas.
“There are many different angles to why this is a clear case,” Yanovsky told Al Jazeera.
He pointed out that under the U.S. Constitution, only Congress exercises the power to authorize military action. He also pointed out that the attack on Venezuela “is in direct violation of the United Nations Charter, which is the treaty law of the United States.”
“All the fig leaves that presidents have used in the past to justify unilateral military action don’t apply here,” Yanovsky added. “This is particularly brazen.”
difficult battle
Since August, the Trump administration has signaled plans to step up its “maximum pressure” campaign against Venezuela.
That same month, President Trump reportedly signed a secret memo asking the U.S. military to prepare for action against overseas criminal networks. Then, on September 2, the Trump administration launched dozens of airstrikes against suspected drug-smuggling vessels off the coasts of Venezuela and Colombia.
The deadly bombing campaign itself was denounced as a violation of international law and an affront to Congress’ constitutional authority. That coincided with the buildup of U.S. military assets near Venezuela.
President Trump also dropped hints that U.S. military operations could quickly expand to target suspected drug trafficking inside Venezuela. “If they come by land, we’re going to stop them the same way we stopped boats,” President Trump said on September 16.
The airstrikes prompted two recent House votes in December. One would require Congressional approval for a ground attack on the South American country, and the other would require President Trump to seek approval for an attack on an alleged drug-smuggling vessel.
However, both resolutions failed largely along party lines. A similar resolution in the Senate that would have required parliamentary approval before further attacks was introduced in November, but failed.
But Sen. Tim Kaine told reporters in a call just hours after the U.S. operation on Saturday that he hoped the brazenness of President Trump’s recent actions in Venezuela would shock lawmakers into action.
He said Republicans can no longer say Trump’s months of military buildup and repeated threats in the Caribbean are a “bluff” or a “negotiation tactic.”
“It’s time for Congress to get off the couch and do what needs to be done,” Kaine said.
U.S. Sen. Chris Murphy agreed in an interview with CNN’s Dana Bash that it is “a fact” that Congress has become powerless on war issues, a phenomenon that spans Democratic and Republican administrations.
Bash pointed to former President Barack Obama’s military deployment to Libya in 2011, which went unchecked by Congress.
“Congress needs to play its own role in allowing the presidency to become so lawless,” Murphy responded.
Republicans are vocal about the resolution.
Under the U.S. Constitution, only Congress can declare war, but Congress has not done so since World War II.
Instead, lawmakers have historically passed Authorizations for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), which authorize the use of military forces in recent wars, such as the U.S. invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and attacks on alleged al-Qaeda affiliates across the Middle East, Africa and Asia.
The AUMF related to military operations in Venezuela has not yet been passed.
If lawmakers decide the president is acting in excess of his constitutional authority, they can pass a war powers resolution that requires Congressional approval for further action.
Beyond symbolism, such resolutions create a legal basis to challenge further presidential actions in the judiciary.
However, overriding the president’s veto requires a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress, making the hurdle for success high.
Given the current makeup of Congress, passing a war powers resolution will likely require bipartisan support.
Republicans hold slim majorities in both houses of Congress, so any war powers resolution would need support from members of Trump’s own party to pass.
In a Senate vote in November, only two Republicans, co-sponsors Rand Paul of Kentucky and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, split from their party in support of the resolution. They lost by a difference of 51-49.
In December, the House of Representatives voted on a parallel resolution with only 211 votes in favor and 213 votes against. At that time, three Republican members left their party and supported the resolution, and one Democratic member opposed it.
However, President Trump’s abduction of President Maduro has so far been condemned only by a small section of the party.
Overall, elected Republicans have been slow to respond. Even regular critics of the president’s adventurism have instead focused on praising the ouster of Venezuela’s longtime leader, who has been accused of numerous human rights violations.
Republican Sen. Todd Young, who is under careful consideration ahead of November’s war powers vote, praised Maduro’s arrest, even as he argued the Trump administration had an obligation to explain the details to Congress.
“We need more answers, especially on questions about the next steps in Venezuela’s transition,” Young said.
Some Democrats also offered cautious messages in the wake of the operation.
Among them was Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a Democrat who represents Florida’s large Venezuelan diaspora community.
In a statement Saturday, Wasserman Schultz focused on the impact of Maduro’s ouster, but declined to discuss the military operation that made it possible. Instead, she argued that President Trump has an obligation to explain next steps to Congress.
“He has failed to explain to Congress and the American people how he intends to prevent a regime re-established under Mr. Maduro’s cronies or to prevent Venezuela from descending into chaos,” she wrote.
But in December, Wasserman Schultz joined a group of Florida Democrats calling on Congress to use oversight powers as President Trump ramps up military pressure on Venezuela.
What comes next?
Meanwhile, the Trump administration has not eased its military threat against Venezuela, even as it tries to send the message that Maduro’s abduction is a matter of law enforcement and not the start of war.
President Trump also denied again that he needed Congressional approval for further military action. Still, he expressed optimism about having support from Congress in an interview with NBC News on Monday.
“We have plenty of support from Congress,” he told NBC. “Congress has known what we were doing all along, and we have enough support from Congress. Why won’t Congress support us?”
Since Saturday’s attack and abduction, President Trump has warned that a “second wave” of military action against Venezuela could be looming.
The threat extends to the possible forced removal of Maduro’s vice president, Delcy Rodriguez, who was officially sworn in as interim president on Monday.
“If she doesn’t do the right thing, she’s going to pay a very high price, probably even bigger than Maduro,” Trump told The Atlantic.
The administration also said it would continue to attack suspected drug-smuggling vessels near Venezuela and continue to deploy U.S. military facilities in the region.
But Yanovsky, the constitutional expert, believes now is a critical time for Congress to act.
Failure to rein in the Trump administration will only reinforce a decades-long trend of lawmakers relinquishing oversight powers, he explained. That, in turn, provides tacit support for increased presidential power over the military.
“Claiming that this was a targeted law enforcement operation and ignoring the ongoing situation would be a dangerous abdication of Congress as a central check on how the U.S. military is used,” Yanovsky said.
He added: “Continued inaction from Congress only allows the president to do whatever he wants.”
“As we watch Congress continue to backslide, it will ultimately only push the American people further away from where decisions are actually made.”
