rein

United States Vice President JD Vance has cast the tie-breaking vote to defeat a war powers resolution that would have forced President Donald Trump to seek Congress’s approval before taking any further military action in Venezuela.

The Senate’s session on Wednesday evening came to a nail-biting conclusion, as the fate of the resolution ended up resting on the shoulders of two Republican politicians.

Senators Todd Young of Indiana and Josh Hawley of Missouri had voted last week, as part of a group of five breakaway Republicans, to put the resolution to a full Senate vote. With unanimous support from Democrats, the measure advanced with 52 votes in favour, 47 against.

But supporters of the resolution could only afford to lose one vote in order to secure the bill’s passage. By Wednesday, it had lost two: both Young and Hawley.

The final vote was evenly split, 50 to 50, allowing Vance to act as tie-breaker and defeat the resolution.

Hawley signalled early in the day that he had decided to withdraw his support. But Young was a wild card until shortly before the final vote took place

“After numerous conversations with senior national security officials, I have received assurances that there are no American troops in Venezuela,” Young wrote on social media.

“I’ve also received a commitment that if President Trump were to determine American forces are needed in major military operations in Venezuela, the Administration will come to Congress in advance to ask for an authorization of force.”

Young also shared a letter, dated Wednesday, from Secretary of State Marco Rubio, offering lukewarm assurances that Congress would be notified ahead of any future military action in Venezuela.

“Should the President determine that he needs to introduce US Armed Forces into hostilities in major military operation in Venezuela, he would seek congressional authorizations in advance (circumstances permitting),” Rubio wrote.

Legal questions about the Venezuela attack

The latest war powers resolution arrived in response to a surprise announcement on January 3 that Trump had launched a military action to topple Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro.

Explosions were reported in the Venezuelan capital of Caracas and nearby military bases, and Trump appeared in a broadcast hours later to announce that the US had abducted Maduro and transported him to the US to face criminal trial.

Maduro’s wife Cilia Flores was also captured as part of the operation.

Two US service members were injured in the attack, and as many as 80 people in Venezuela were killed, including Cuban security personnel involved in guarding Maduro.

“We’re going to run the country until such time as we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition,” Trump said in his speech announcing the attack.

He and Rubio then fielded questions about whether Congress had been notified about the operation. They acknowledged they did not notify lawmakers in advance.

“This was not the kind of mission that you can do congressional notification on,” Rubio said. “It was a trigger-based mission.”

Trump, meanwhile, argued that congressional notification had been a liability to the mission’s security. “Congress will leak, and we don’t want leakers,” he said.

Normally, the US Constitution divides up military authority between the legislative and executive branches. While the president is considered the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, only Congress has the power to declare war and authorise military action.

But that division of power has become gradually eroded, as the executive branch has exercised greater authority over the military.

In recent decades, presidents have often justified unilateral military action by referring to authorisations of military force (AUMFs) approved by Congress in the wake of the attacks on September 11, 2001.

But military action in Venezuela falls outside of the purview of those authorisations, raising questions about the legal justification for the January attack.

On Tuesday, the Department of Justice published a 22-page memo it originally wrote in December to justify the forthcoming attack. That memo argued that, since Maduro’s abduction was an act of “law enforcement”, it fell short of the legal threshold that would have required congressional approval.

In addition, the document asserted that, since the planned military operation was not expected to trigger a war, it also landed outside of Congress’s powers.

“The law does not permit the President to order troops into Venezuela without congressional authorization if he knows it will result in a war,” the memo explained. “As of December 22, 2025, we have not received facts indicating it will.”

A Republican breakaway

But not every Republican agreed with that explanation, and several sought to claw back Congress’s power to oversee US military action.

They included senators Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Rand Paul of Kentucky and Susan Collins of Maine, all seen as pivotal swing votes in Congress’s upper chamber.

Young and Hawley joined the three rogue Republicans for an initial vote to advance the war powers resolution on January 8. But afterwards, all five came under acute pressure to switch sides and rejoin the Republican caucus for the final vote.

President Trump, in particular, denounced the five Republicans on his social media platform Truth Social.

“Republicans should be ashamed of the Senators that just voted with Democrats in attempting to take away our Powers to fight and defend the United States of America,” he wrote in a post.

“This Vote greatly hampers American Self Defense and National Security, impeding the President’s Authority as Commander in Chief.”

Reports emerged that Trump even called some of the senators in advance of Wednesday’s vote, in an effort to gain their support. But the publication The Hill indicated that Trump’s conversation with Collins devolved into a “profanity-laced rant”.

Paul, another Republican who has also courted Trump’s ire, was among the senators to speak before Wednesday’s final vote.

He defended his decision to back the war powers resolution, calling his vote a necessary act to uphold the Constitution’s separation of powers.

“This isn’t really and shouldn’t be Republican versus Democrat. This should be legislative prerogative versus presidential prerogative, and it should be about the Constitution,” Paul said.

“The Constitution — specifically, thoughtfully — vested the power of initiating war and declaring war to Congress,” he added.

“The spectrum of our founding fathers concluded they didn’t want the president to have this power.”

Risking Trump’s ire comes at a higher cost for some Republicans than others. Of the three Republicans who joined Democrats on Wednesday to vote for the war powers resolution, only one is up for re-election this year in the US midterm races: Collins.

WASHINGTON — Five Senate Republicans broke with party leaders on Thursday to advance legislation that would rein in President Trump’s use of the U.S. military in Venezuela, a move that comes as a growing number of GOP lawmakers have expressed unease about the White House’s threats to use force to acquire Greenland.

The procedural vote, which came over the objections of Republican leaders, now sets the stage for a full Senate vote next week on a measure that would block Trump from using military force “within or against Venezuela” without approval from Congress. Even with the Senate’s approval, the legislation is unlikely to become law as it is unlikely to pass the House, and President Trump — who has veto power over legislation — has publicly condemned the measure and the Republicans who supported it.

“This vote greatly hampers American Self Defense and National Security, impeding the President’s Authority as Commander in Chief,” Trump wrote in a social media post shortly after the 52-47 vote in the Senate.

The Republican defection on the issue underscores the growing concern among GOP lawmakers over the Trump administration’s foreign policy ambitions and highlights the bipartisan concern that the president is testing the limits of executive war powers — not only in Venezuela but also in Greenland, a semiautonomous territory of Denmark, a U.S. ally.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Me.), one of the Republicans who voted for the resolution, said that while she supported the operation that led to the capture and extradition of Nicolás Maduro, she did not “support committing additional U.S. forces or entering into any long-term military involvement in Venezuela or Greenland without specific congressional authorization.”

The resolution is co-sponsored by Sens. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.). The Republicans who supported it were Sens. Collins, Paul, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Todd Young of Indiana and Josh Hawley of Missouri.

“Finally, the Senate is exercising its constitutional power over the authorization of the use of force to prevent America from being dragged into a new war over oil,” Schiff said in a social media post after the vote.

Vice President JD Vance told reporters at the White House on Thursday that he was not concerned about Trump losing support among Republican lawmakers in Washington, adding that passage of the resolution in the Senate would not “change anything about how we conduct foreign policy over the next couple of weeks or the next couple of months.”

But Republican support for the resolution reflects a deepening concern within the GOP over Trump’s foreign policy plans, particularly his threats to acquire Greenland — a move that prompted European leaders earlier this week to call on the United States to respect the Arctic territory’s sovereignty

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) told reporters on Wednesday that he does not believe “anybody’s seriously considering” using the military to take control of Greenland.

“In Congress, we’re certainly not,” Johnson said.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) struck a similar tone the same day, telling reporters that he does not “see military action being an option” in Greenland.

Other Republican lawmakers have been more openly critical, warning that even floating the idea of using force against a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, a defense alliance that includes the United States, risks weakening America’s position on the world stage.

“Threats and intimidation by U.S. officials over American ownership of Greenland are as unseemly as they are counterproductive,” Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said in a statement. “And the use of force to seize the sovereign democratic territory of one of America’s most loyal and capable allies would be an especially catastrophic act of strategic self-harm to America and its global influence.”

In a statement Tuesday, the White House said acquiring Greenland was a “national security priority” and that using the military to achieve that goal was “always an option.” A day earlier, Stephen Miller, Trump’s deputy chief of staff for policy, told CNN that “Greenland should be part of the United States.”

“Nobody is going to fight the United States militarily over the future of Greenland,” Miller said.

Miller’s remarks angered Republican senators, including Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) who in an interview with CNN on Wednesday called the idea of invading Greenland “weapons-grade stupid.”

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C), who has served as the top Republicans on the Senate NATO Observer Group since 2018, criticized the idea as well in a searing Senate floor speech.

“I’m sick of stupid,” Tillis said. “I want good advice for this president, because I want this president to have a good legacy. And this nonsense on what’s going on with Greenland is a distraction from the good work he’s doing, and the amateurs who said it was a good idea should lose their jobs.”

Tillis, who is not seeking reelection this year, later told CNN that Miller needs to “get into a lane where he knows what he’s talking about or get out of this job.”

Russian officials indicated in 2019 that the Kremlin would be willing to back off from its support for Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela in exchange for a free hand in Ukraine, according to Fiona Hill, an advisor to President Trump at the time.

The Russians repeatedly floated the idea of a “very strange swap arrangement between Venezuela and Ukraine,” Hill said during a congressional hearing in 2019. Her comments surfaced again this week and were shared on social media after the U.S. stealth operation to capture Maduro.

Hill said Russia pushed the idea through articles in Russian media that referenced the Monroe Doctrine — a 19th-century principle in which the U.S. opposed European meddling in the Western Hemisphere and, in return, agreed to stay out of European affairs. It was invoked by Trump to justify the U.S. intervention in Venezuela.

Even though Russian officials never made a formal offer, Moscow’s then-ambassador to the United States, Anatoly Antonov, hinted many times to her that Russia was willing to allow the United States to act as it wished in Venezuela if the U.S. did the same for Russia in Europe, Hill told the Associated Press this week.

“Before there was a ‘hint hint, nudge nudge, wink wink, how about doing a deal?’ But nobody [in the U.S.] was interested then,” Hill said.

Trump dispatched Hill — then his senior advisor on Russia and Europe — to Moscow in April 2019 to deliver that message. She said she told Russian officials “Ukraine and Venezuela are not related to each other.”

At that time, she said, the White House was aligned with allies in recognizing Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaido as the country’s interim president.

But fast forward seven years and the situation is different.

After ousting Maduro, the U.S. has said it will now “run” Venezuela policy. Trump also has renewed his threat to take over Greenland — a self-governing territory of Denmark and part of the NATO military alliance — and threatened to take military action against Colombia for facilitating the global sale of cocaine.

The Kremlin will be “thrilled” with the idea that large countries — such as Russia, the United States and China — get spheres of influence because it proves “might makes right,” Hill said.

Trump’s actions in Venezuela make it harder for Kyiv’s allies to condemn Russia’s designs on Ukraine as “illegitimate” because “we’ve just had a situation where the U.S. has taken over — or at least decapitated the government of another country — using fiction,” Hill told AP.

The Trump administration has described its raid in Venezuela as a law enforcement operation and has insisted that capturing Maduro was legal.

The Russian Foreign Ministry did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Hill’s account.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has not commented on the military operation to oust Maduro but the Foreign Ministry issued statements condemning U.S. “aggression.”

Burrows writes for the Associated Press.

Washington, DC – It has become a familiar pattern. United States presidents conduct unilateral military actions abroad. Congress shrugs.

On Saturday, in the hours after the US military abducted Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro, Democrats in the Senate pledged to raise yet another resolution to rein in US President Donald Trump’s military actions.

Chuck Schumer, the top Democrat in the chamber, has said the party will push for a vote within the week. By all accounts, the odds of its success remain long.

Since Trump took office for a second term in 2025, Congress has weighed multiple bills that would force him to seek legislative approval before initiating a military strike.

But the latest attack on Venezuela offers a stark instance of presidential overreach, one that is “crying out for congressional action”, according to David Janovsky, the acting director of the Constitution Project at the Project on Government Oversight.

Experts say it is also one of the clearest tests in recent history of whether Congress will continue to cede its authority to check US military engagement abroad.

“There are a lot of angles where you can come at this to say why it’s a clear-cut case,” Janovsky told Al Jazeera.

He pointed out that, under the US Constitution, Congress alone wields the authority to allow military action. He also noted that the Venezuela attack “is in direct contravention of the UN Charter, which is, as a treaty, law in the United States”.

“Any of the fig leaves that presidents have used in the past to justify unilateral military action just don’t apply here,” Janovsky added. “This is particularly brazen.”

An uphill battle

Since August, the Trump administration has signalled plans to crank up its “maximum pressure” campaign against Venezuela.

That month, Trump reportedly signed a secret memo calling on the US military to prepare for action against criminal networks abroad. Then, on September 2, the Trump administration began conducting dozens of strikes on alleged drug-smuggling boats off the Venezuelan and Colombian coasts.

That deadly bombing campaign was itself condemned as a violation of international law and an affront to Congress’s constitutional powers. It coincided with a build-up of US military assets near Venezuela.

Trump also dropped hints that the US military campaign could quickly expand to alleged drug-trafficking targets on Venezuelan soil. “When they come by land, we’re going to be stopping them the same way we stopped the boats,” Trump said on September 16.

The strikes prompted two recent votes in the House of Representatives in December: one that would require congressional approval for any land strikes on the South American country, and one that would force Trump to seek approval for strikes on alleged drug-smuggling boats.

Both resolutions, however, failed roughly along party lines. A similar resolution in the Senate, which would have required congressional approval before any more attacks, also fell short in November.

But speaking to reporters in a phone call just hours after the US operation on Saturday, Senator Tim Kaine said he hoped the brashness of Trump’s latest actions in Venezuela would shock lawmakers into action.

Republicans, he said, can no longer tell themselves that Trump’s months-long military build-up in the Caribbean and his repeated threats are a “bluff” or a “negotiating tactic”.

“It’s time for Congress to get its a** off the couch and do what it’s supposed to do,” Kaine said.

In an interview with CNN’s Dana Bash, US Senator Chris Murphy also agreed that it was “true” that Congress had become impotent on matters of war, a phenomenon that has spanned both Democratic and Republican administrations.

Bash pointed to former President Barack Obama’s 2011 military deployment to Libya, which went unchecked by Congress.

“Congress needs to own its own role in allowing a presidency to become this lawless,” Murphy responded.

Republicans ho-hum about resolutions

Under the US Constitution, only Congress can declare war, something it has not done since World War II.

Instead, lawmakers have historically passed Authorizations for Use of Military Force (AUMFs) to approve committing troops to recent wars, including the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and the strikes on alleged al-Qaeda affiliates across the Middle East, Africa and Asia.

No AUMFs have been passed that would relate to military action in Venezuela.

When lawmakers believe a president is acting beyond his constitutional power, they can pass a war powers resolution requiring Congressional approval for further actions.

Beyond their symbolism, such resolutions create a legal basis to challenge further presidential actions in the judiciary.

However, they carry a high bar for success, with a two-thirds majority in both chambers of Congress needed to override a presidential veto.

Given the current makeup of Congress, passage of a war powers resolution would likely require bipartisan support.

Republicans maintain narrow majorities in both the House and Senate, so it would be necessary for members of Trump’s own party to back a war powers resolution for it to be successful.

In November’s Senate vote, only two Republicans — co-sponsor Rand Paul of Kentucky, and Lisa Murkowski, of Alaska — split from their party to support the resolution. It failed by a margin of 51 to 49.

December’s vote on a parallel resolution in the House only earned 211 votes in favour, as opposed to 213 against. In that case, three Republicans broke from their party to support the resolution, and one Democrat opposed it.

But Trump’s abduction of Maduro has so far only received condemnation from a tiny fragment of his party.

Overall, the response from elected Republicans has been muted. Even regular critics of presidential adventurism have instead focused on praising the ouster of the longtime Venezuelan leader, who has been accused of numerous human rights abuses.

Senator Todd Young, a Republican considered on the fence ahead of November’s war powers vote, has praised Maduro’s arrest, even as he contended the Trump administration owed Congress more details.

“We still need more answers, especially to questions regarding the next steps in Venezuela’s transition,” Young said.

Some Democrats have also offered careful messaging in the wake of the operation.

That included Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a Democrat who represents a large Venezuelan diaspora community in Florida.

In a statement on Saturday, Wasserman Schultz focused on the implications of Maduro’s removal, while avoiding any mention of the military operation that enabled it. Instead, she asserted that Trump owed Congress an explanation about next steps.

“He has failed to explain to Congress or the American people how he plans to prevent the regime from reconstituting itself under Maduro’s cronies or stop Venezuela from falling into chaos,” she wrote.

In December, however, Wasserman Schultz did join a group of Florida Democrats in calling for Congress to exercise its oversight authority as Trump built up military pressure on Venezuela.

What comes next?

For its part, the Trump administration has not eased up on its military threats against Venezuela, even as it has sought to send the message that Maduro’s abduction was a matter of law enforcement, not the start of a war.

Trump has also denied, once again, that he needed congressional approval for any further military action. Still, in a Monday interview with NBC News, he expressed optimism about having Congress’s backing.

“We have good support congressionally,” he told NBC. “Congress knew what we were doing all along, but we have good support congressionally. Why wouldn’t they support us?”

Since Saturday’s attack and abduction, Trump has warned that a “second wave” of military action could be on the horizon for Venezuela.

That threat has extended to the potential for the forced removal of Maduro’s deputy, Delcy Rodriguez, who was formally sworn in as the country’s interim president on Monday.

“If she doesn’t do what’s right, she is going to pay a very big price, probably bigger than Maduro,” Trump told The Atlantic magazine.

The administration has also said that strikes on alleged drug-smuggling boats near Venezuela will continue and that US military assets will remain deployed in the region.

Constitutional expert Janovsky, however, believes that this is a critical moment for Congress to act.

Failure to rein in Trump would only further reinforce a decades-long trend of lawmakers relinquishing their oversight authorities, he explained. That, in turn, offers tacit support for the presidency’s growing power over the military.

“To say this was a targeted law enforcement operation — and ignore the ongoing situation — would be a dangerous abdication of Congress as a central check on how the United States military is used,” Janovsky said.

“Continued congressional inaction does nothing but empower presidents to act however they want,” he added.

“To see Congress continue to step back ultimately just removes the American people even farther from where these decisions are actually being made.”

Rory McIlroy claims United States captain Keegan Bradley could have used his platform to rein in abusive crowd behaviour at last year’s Ryder Cup, but did not take the opportunity.

Europe defeated the US 15-13 at Bethpage Black to retain the trophy and become the first away team to win the event since 2012.

Yet they did so in the face of relentless heckling in New York, with Northern Ireland golfer McIlroy’s wife Erica hit by a drink thrown by an American fan and “horrific” abuse directed towards them both and their young daughter Poppy.

“We knew going to New York that we were going to get a lot of stick, a lot of abuse,” said McIlroy, while appearing on The Overlap., external

“Look, I don’t care if people are saying whatever they’re saying to me.”

McIlroy said he was able to brush off a Bethpage MC joining in with an expletive-led abusive chant about him, while she warmed up the crowd, saying that was “nothing compared to the other stuff we heard”.

“Erica, my wife, would say she’s a grown woman, she’s strong, she can handle that. But then when it starts to get into your family, I heard stuff about my daughter that I couldn’t even repeat here. It’s horrific,” McIlroy said.

The world number two added: “Keegan and I have talked about this. You have to play into the home-field advantage, absolutely.

“But during the competition on Friday night and Saturday night, after the stuff that we heard on the course, there was an opportunity for either Keegan or some of the team-mates to be like: ‘Let’s just calm down here. Let’s try to play this match in the right spirit.’

“Some of them did that, but obviously Keegan had the biggest platform of the week in being the captain. I feel like he could have said something on that Friday or Saturday night, and he didn’t.”