U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance cast the tie-breaking vote to reject the War Powers Resolution, which would have required President Donald Trump to seek approval from Congress before taking further military action in Venezuela.
Wednesday night’s Senate session came to a heartbreaking end, with the resolution’s fate resting on the shoulders of two Republican politicians.
Recommended stories
list of 3 itemsend of list
Sens. Todd Young of Indiana and Josh Hawley of Missouri voted last week to send the resolution to a full Senate vote as part of a group of five defecting Republicans. With unanimous support from Democrats, the bill advanced with 52 votes in favor and 47 votes against.
However, supporters of the resolution could only lose one vote to ensure passage of the bill. By Wednesday, they had lost both Young and Hawley.
The final vote was evenly tied 50-50, with Vance acting as the tiebreaker and allowing the resolution to fail.
Earlier in the day, Hawley announced his decision to withdraw his support. But Young remained a wild card until just before the final vote.
“After numerous discussions with senior national security officials, I have received assurances that there are no U.S. troops in Venezuela,” Young wrote on social media.
“We have also received a promise that if President Trump determines that U.S. forces are necessary for a large-scale military operation in Venezuela, the administration will come to Congress in advance to seek authorization for the use of force.”
Young also shared a letter dated Wednesday from Secretary of State Marco Rubio, offering lukewarm assurances that Congress would be notified in advance of any future military action in Venezuela.
“If the President determines that it is necessary to commit U.S. forces to hostilities in a major military operation in Venezuela, he will seek prior approval from Congress (if circumstances permit),” Rubio said.
Legal issues regarding attack on Venezuela
The latest war powers resolution was filed in response to President Trump’s sudden announcement on January 3 that he was launching military action to overthrow Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro.
Explosions were reported in the Venezuelan capital of Caracas and a nearby military base, and Trump appeared on air hours later to announce that the United States had abducted Maduro and transferred him to the United States to face criminal trial.
President Maduro’s wife, Cilia Flores, was also captured as part of the operation.
The attack injured two U.S. military personnel and killed up to 80 people in Venezuela, including Cuban security personnel who were protecting Mr. Maduro.
In his speech announcing the attack, President Trump said, “We will continue to run our country until we can have a safe, proper and wise transition of power.”
He and Rubio then questioned whether Congress was notified of the operation. He admitted that he did not notify lawmakers in advance.
“This was not the type of mission that could be notified to Congress,” Rubio said. “It was a trigger-based mission.”
President Trump, on the other hand, claimed that the Congressional notification jeopardized the safety of the mission. “Congress is going to be leaked. We don’t want leakers,” he said.
The U.S. Constitution typically divides military power between the legislative and executive branches. Although the president is considered the supreme commander of the military, only Congress has the power to declare war and authorize military action.
However, as the executive branch has begun to exercise greater authority over the military, this division of power has been gradually eroded.
In recent decades, presidents have often justified unilateral military action by citing the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), which Congress authorized in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks.
However, military action in Venezuela falls outside of these mandates, raising questions about the legal legitimacy of the January attack.
On Tuesday, the Justice Department released a 22-page memo originally written in December to justify the upcoming attack. The memo argued that Maduro’s abduction was an act of “law enforcement” and therefore fell below the legal standard of requiring parliamentary approval.
The document also argued that the planned military operations were outside Congress’s authority because they were not expected to cause war.
“The law does not allow the president to order the sending of troops to Venezuela without Congressional authorization if he knows there will be war,” the memo explains. “As of December 22, 2025, we have not yet received any evidence indicating this will be the case.”
Republican withdrawal
But not all Republicans agreed with that explanation, and some sought to restore Congress’s authority to oversee U.S. military operations.
They include Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Rand Paul of Kentucky, and Susan Collins of Maine, all of whom are considered key swing votes in Congress.
Mr. Young and Mr. Hawley joined three rogue Republicans in the first vote to advance the War Powers Resolution on January 8th. But all five subsequently faced intense pressure to switch sides and rejoin the Republican caucus for a final vote.
In particular, President Trump criticized five Republican congressmen on his social media platform “Truth Social.”
“Republicans should be ashamed of the senator who just voted with the Democrats to take away our authority to fight and defend the United States of America,” he said in the post.
“This vote significantly impedes America’s self-defense and national security and impedes the President’s authority as Commander-in-Chief.”
Trump reportedly called some senators ahead of Wednesday’s vote to try to get their support. However, the publication The Hill noted that the conversation between Trump and Collins devolved into a “profane rant.”
Paul, another Republican who has drawn Trump’s ire, was among the senators speaking before Wednesday’s final vote.
He defended his decision to support the War Powers Resolution, arguing that his vote was necessary to uphold the Constitution’s separation of powers.
“This isn’t really a Republican versus Democratic conflict, and it shouldn’t be. This should be about Congressional prerogatives versus presidential prerogatives, and it should be about the Constitution,” Paul said.
“The Constitution is particularly prudent in starting war and giving Congress the power to declare war,” he added.
“Our founding fathers came to the conclusion that they did not want the president to have this kind of power.”
For some Republicans, the risk of incurring Trump’s wrath comes at a higher price than for others. Of the three Republicans who joined Democrats in voting in favor of the war powers resolution on Wednesday, only one, Collins, is running for re-election in this year’s U.S. midterm elections.
