Congress Moves to Force Vote on Trump’s Undeclared Military Actions Near Venezuela
Congress Moves to Force Vote on Trump’s Undeclared Military Actions Near Venezuela
Congress is moving toward a high-stakes vote that could force a direct confrontation with Donald Trump over U.S. military actions near Venezuela, using the fast-track procedures of the War Powers Resolution to demand accountability.
At the center of the effort is S.J.Res. 90, a joint resolution introduced in October 2025 that would direct the withdrawal of U.S. forces from any “hostilities within or against Venezuela” not authorized by Congress. An initial attempt to bring the measure to the Senate floor failed on November 6, 2025, when senators rejected a motion to discharge the resolution, but supporters are pressing ahead to force a recorded vote.
Public reporting indicates that the push was triggered by U.S. strikes on suspected drug-smuggling boats near Venezuela. Some accounts allege that follow-on fire killed people who survived initial strikes, though key details remain disputed. Lawmakers have demanded additional evidence, including unedited footage, arguing that the public record is incomplete and that unresolved factual questions are central to determining legality.
Those gaps matter because whether those killed were civilians, noncombatants, or lawful military targets depends on facts the government has not fully disclosed. Until those details are made public, Congress and outside analysts say it is impossible to assess compliance with domestic and international law.
Under the Constitution, Congress holds the power to declare war, while the president serves as commander in chief. The War Powers Resolution was enacted to enforce that balance, requiring consultation and reporting and setting timelines for congressional authorization or termination once U.S. forces enter hostilities or situations where hostilities are imminent.
According to the Congressional Research Service, the Trump administration has argued that maritime strikes tied to drug trafficking fall within the president’s independent Article II authority. The administration has reportedly told Congress that U.S. forces are engaged in a “non-international armed conflict” with drug cartels linked to Venezuela, a claim that some legal experts and government lawyers have questioned.
Legal experts also warn that labels alone do not create lawful targets. Even if an administration describes adversaries as “terrorists” or “narco-terrorists,” the laws of armed conflict still require distinguishing civilians from combatants and protecting those who are defenseless or out of combat, including shipwrecked survivors.
Congress’s strongest constitutional argument rests on separation-of-powers principles articulated in the Supreme Court’s Youngstown framework. Under that analysis, presidential power is weakest when acting against Congress’s expressed will. A War Powers resolution directing withdrawal is designed to put Congress’s opposition squarely on the record.
While a War Powers vote cannot resolve disputed facts about individual strikes, it can determine whether Congress will accept an executive theory allowing lethal operations to continue without new authorization. The broader stakes are constitutional: if Congress fails to act, future presidents may treat that silence as permission; if it prevails, lawmakers will reaffirm that sustained military action requires explicit approval from the people’s representatives.
