Listen to the article
In a tense vote that stretched over 20 minutes, House Republicans narrowly defeated a bipartisan war powers resolution aimed at restricting President Donald Trump’s military authority in Venezuela. The measure failed in a 215-215 tie, falling short of the majority needed to pass, marking a significant victory for both House Speaker Mike Johnson and the White House.
The resolution, sponsored by Representatives Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), would have directed the Trump administration to remove any U.S. forces from Venezuela and limited future military actions in the country. Only two Republicans, Massie and Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.), broke ranks to support the measure.
Speaker Johnson deliberately held the vote open as Republicans struggled to secure enough opposition votes. The stalemate was finally broken when Rep. Wesley Hunt (R-Texas) arrived in the chamber, ensuring the resolution’s defeat. During the extended voting period, frustrated Democrats could be heard shouting, “Close the vote!” with Rep. Pat Ryan (D-N.Y.) exclaiming, “This is serious s—!”
The House vote followed a similar debate in the Senate, where lawmakers recently rejected a comparable resolution introduced by Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.). The congressional pushback emerged after President Trump ordered the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro earlier this month, an operation the administration has characterized as a law enforcement action rather than a military intervention.
“It’s a shame that these members of Congress want to usurp the authority of the commander in chief to take vital actions to strengthen our national security and stop drugs and criminals from entering our homeland,” White House spokesperson Anna Kelly told Fox News Digital.
The administration maintains that Maduro’s capture was a coordinated effort to apprehend an alleged criminal. Maduro and his wife were previously indicted in a New York court for allegedly facilitating drug trafficking into the United States. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has emphasized to lawmakers that there are currently no U.S. armed forces on the ground in Venezuela, though Trump has ordered a naval blockade off the country’s coast.
Speaker Johnson defended the president’s constitutional authority as commander-in-chief. “We are the last great superpower, and we have to allow the president the authority to use what is his under the Constitution,” Johnson told reporters. “I don’t think we need to get in the way of that.”
Democrats and the small number of Republican supporters of the resolution have expressed concerns that without congressional oversight, the U.S. might engage in further military operations in Venezuela. The debate highlights the ongoing tension between executive war powers and congressional authority to declare war.
The administration’s current approach to Venezuela appears to be evolving into a three-pronged plan focused on stabilization, recovery, and transition, according to Secretary Rubio’s statements after classified briefings on Capitol Hill. Rubio is scheduled to appear before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee next week to provide more details about the administration’s regional strategy.
The Venezuela situation represents one of the most significant foreign policy moves of Trump’s presidency thus far, raising questions about executive authority and the role of Congress in authorizing military actions abroad. The dramatic capture of Maduro—shown in handcuffs after landing at a Manhattan helipad and escorted by heavily armed federal agents to a federal courthouse—has already altered the geopolitical landscape in Latin America.
As the administration moves forward with its Venezuela policy, congressional oversight will remain a contentious issue, particularly as Democrats continue to push for more transparency and involvement in decision-making regarding potential military engagement in the region.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
12 Comments
The GOP’s narrow victory in this vote suggests there are still divisions within the party on the appropriate use of military force, particularly when it comes to Venezuela. This issue is likely to remain a point of contention between the White House and Congress.
While the GOP prevailed, the closeness of the vote indicates there are valid concerns on both sides of the aisle about the president’s war powers. Striking the right balance will be crucial for maintaining a coherent and effective foreign policy.
The back-and-forth over war powers in Venezuela highlights the challenges of maintaining a coherent and consistent foreign policy, especially when there are sharp political divisions. This will likely continue to be a contentious issue.
It’s concerning to see the partisan nature of this vote, as foreign policy decisions should ideally have broader support. Maintaining stability in the region is important, but the means to achieve that are clearly still hotly debated.
While the GOP prevailed in this vote, the narrow margin indicates there are still concerns within the party about the president’s war powers, particularly when it comes to potential military action in Venezuela. This will likely remain a point of debate going forward.
The partisan nature of this vote is concerning, as foreign policy decisions should ideally have broader support. It will be interesting to see if this issue gains more bipartisan traction in the future.
This was a close vote, reflecting the ongoing tensions around Trump’s foreign policy in Venezuela. It will be interesting to see how this plays out going forward, with potential implications for U.S. involvement in the region.
The GOP’s narrow victory suggests there is still a division within the party on how to approach Venezuela. It will be worth watching to see if this issue gains more bipartisan support in the future.
The GOP’s resistance to limiting Trump’s authority in Venezuela reflects the party’s generally hawkish stance on foreign interventions. However, the close vote suggests there is at least some discomfort within the party about the president’s unchecked power in this area.
This is a complex issue with valid arguments on both sides. Ultimately, I hope lawmakers can find a way to balance concerns over executive power and the need for flexibility in foreign policy.
This vote reflects the ongoing struggle between the executive and legislative branches over the use of military force. While the GOP was able to narrowly defeat the measure, the close result suggests there is still unease within the party about unfettered presidential power in this area.
The heated debate and extended voting process highlight the high stakes and political tensions surrounding this issue. It will be crucial for lawmakers to find a way to balance national security concerns with checks on executive authority.