Listen to the article
The House of Representatives narrowly rejected a Democratic-backed resolution Thursday that would have restricted President Donald Trump from deploying U.S. military forces to Venezuela, highlighting growing tensions over presidential war powers and Republican divisions on Trump’s foreign policy approach.
The resolution failed after a dramatic 20-minute vote extension while Republican Rep. Wesley Hunt, who had been campaigning in Texas, rushed back to Washington to cast the deciding vote. The final tally ended in a tie, which fell short of the majority needed for passage. Democrats vocally protested on the House floor, accusing Republican leadership of violating procedural rules during the extended voting period.
Two Republicans—Reps. Don Bacon of Nebraska and Thomas Massie of Kentucky—broke with their party to support the Democratic measure, signaling cracks in GOP unity regarding Trump’s increasingly assertive military actions in the Western Hemisphere.
The war powers resolution would have directed Trump to withdraw any U.S. troops from Venezuela. While the Trump administration has assured lawmakers that no American ground forces are currently deployed in the South American nation, Democrats argued the resolution was necessary following recent U.S. operations to capture Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro and Trump’s stated intentions to control Venezuela’s oil industry.
“Donald Trump is reducing the United States to a regional bully with fewer allies and more enemies,” said Rep. Gregory Meeks, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. “This isn’t making America great again. It’s making us isolated and weak.”
This House vote mirrors similar divisions in the Senate, where Vice President JD Vance had to break a tied vote last week on a comparable resolution. In that case, the Trump administration convinced two Republican senators to withdraw their support, narrowly defeating the measure.
Republican Rep. Brian Mast, chair of the House Armed Services Committee, characterized the resolution as politically motivated. “It’s about the fact that you don’t want President Trump to arrest Maduro, and you will condemn him no matter what he does, even though he brought Maduro to justice with possibly the most successful law enforcement operation in history,” Mast said during floor debate.
The resolution reflects broader concerns about Trump’s expansive approach to foreign policy. His recent threats against Denmark over Greenland and aggressive posture toward European allies have alarmed some Republicans, including Bacon, who expressed frustration with the administration’s tactics. “I’m tired of all the threats,” Bacon stated after voting for the resolution.
Trump’s military actions have reignited debate over the War Powers Act, legislation passed in the 1970s designed to limit presidential authority to deploy troops without congressional approval. The law allows lawmakers to force votes directing the president to withdraw forces from hostilities when there has been no formal declaration of war.
Democrats argue that Trump has pushed the boundaries of presidential war powers further than his predecessors. The administration conducted its surprise raid to capture Maduro without congressional notification and has employed various legal justifications to destroy suspected drug boats and seize oil tankers near Venezuela.
As the Trump administration assumes control over Venezuela’s petroleum exports, Senate Democrats have raised questions about potential conflicts of interest in oil contracts. In a letter to White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, 13 Democratic senators led by Adam Schiff of California expressed concern over an early $250 million license granted to Vitol, the world’s largest independent oil broker. They noted that a senior Vitol partner, John Addison, contributed approximately $6 million to Trump-aligned political action committees during the presidential campaign.
“Congress and the American people deserve full transparency regarding any financial commitments, promises, deals, or other arrangements related to Venezuela that could favor donors to the President’s campaign and political operation,” the senators wrote.
The White House maintains that its actions in Venezuela are intended to benefit both the Venezuelan people and American interests, characterizing its oversight of the country’s oil assets as protective rather than exploitative.
The contentious vote represents the latest challenge in Congress regarding how much latitude to give a president who campaigned on reducing foreign entanglements but has increasingly embraced military interventions in the region.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
12 Comments
Interesting to see the divisions within the Republican party over Trump’s foreign policy approach. It highlights the ongoing debate around presidential war powers and the role of Congress in authorizing military actions.
The narrow defeat of this resolution shows how contentious these issues remain. Careful oversight of the executive’s military actions is critical, regardless of party affiliation.
This vote reflects the delicate balance between the executive and legislative branches when it comes to military deployments. It will be worth watching how this dynamic evolves, especially with growing tensions in the Western Hemisphere.
The defection of two Republicans signals that some in the party are willing to challenge the president’s more assertive foreign policy stance. This could foreshadow further debates on the appropriate use of military force.
This vote demonstrates the challenges in establishing clear boundaries around presidential war powers, especially when it comes to potential military interventions in the Western Hemisphere. The narrow defeat suggests continued debate on this issue.
The split within the Republican party on this issue is noteworthy. It will be worth monitoring how these intraparty dynamics play out as Congress seeks to exert greater oversight over the executive branch’s foreign policy decisions.
This vote reflects the delicate balance of power between Congress and the president when it comes to military actions. The narrow defeat of the resolution suggests continued debates over the appropriate use of force and the role of the legislative branch in authorizing deployments.
The defection of Republican lawmakers on this issue indicates that some in the party are willing to challenge the president’s approach, even on sensitive foreign policy matters. This could foreshadow further bipartisan efforts to assert congressional oversight in the future.
The House’s rejection of this war powers resolution highlights the ongoing political tensions around Trump’s approach to Venezuela. It will be interesting to see if Congress takes further action to rein in the president’s authority in this region.
The close vote reflects the complexities involved. Maintaining a proper balance between executive and legislative power on military matters is crucial, even in the face of partisan divides.
The House’s near-rejection of this resolution underscores the ongoing tensions between the executive and legislative branches on matters of national security and military deployments. Careful consideration of these complex issues is crucial, regardless of partisan affiliations.
The fact that two Republicans broke ranks highlights the nuances involved. Upholding checks and balances on presidential war powers remains an important principle, even as political divides persist.