US Senate rejects Trump's war powers resolution designed to rein in President's military actions
In a narrow 50-50 vote, the US Senate defeated a war powers resolution aimed at limiting President Donald Trump's ability to take unilateral military action in Venezuela without Congressional approval. Vice President JD Vance cast the tie-breaking vote against the measure, effectively upholding Trump's executive authority.
The resolution, which had garnered unanimous support from Democrats, was advanced by a group of five breakaway Republicans - including Senators Todd Young and Josh Hawley - who voted last week to put it on the Senate floor. However, both Young and Hawley later withdrew their support, citing assurances from Secretary of State Marco Rubio that the administration would notify Congress in advance of any future military actions.
The latest attempt at war powers resolution came in response to a surprise US military operation aimed at toppling Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, which saw explosions reported in Caracas and resulted in the deaths of at least 80 people. Trump had argued that Congressional notification was unnecessary, citing security concerns.
However, opposition from some Republicans, including Senators Lisa Murkowski, Rand Paul, and Susan Collins, highlighted growing unease among lawmakers about the erosion of congressional oversight on military actions. The group argued that unilateral executive action would undermine the Constitution's separation of powers.
Paul defended his decision to back the war powers resolution, stating it was necessary to uphold the Constitution's principles. "The Constitution — specifically, thoughtfully — vested the power of initiating war and declaring war to Congress," he said.
The outcome reflects a deepening divide between Trump's executive authority and congressional oversight in US foreign policy. While the President has claimed broad latitude to act unilaterally, lawmakers have pushed back against what they see as an attempt to erode checks on his power.
As the US midterms approach, some Republicans are risking their careers to speak out against Trump's policies. For Collins, one of three Republican senators who voted with Democrats on the war powers resolution, the cost may be high - but she argues that upholding constitutional principles is worth it.
In a narrow 50-50 vote, the US Senate defeated a war powers resolution aimed at limiting President Donald Trump's ability to take unilateral military action in Venezuela without Congressional approval. Vice President JD Vance cast the tie-breaking vote against the measure, effectively upholding Trump's executive authority.
The resolution, which had garnered unanimous support from Democrats, was advanced by a group of five breakaway Republicans - including Senators Todd Young and Josh Hawley - who voted last week to put it on the Senate floor. However, both Young and Hawley later withdrew their support, citing assurances from Secretary of State Marco Rubio that the administration would notify Congress in advance of any future military actions.
The latest attempt at war powers resolution came in response to a surprise US military operation aimed at toppling Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, which saw explosions reported in Caracas and resulted in the deaths of at least 80 people. Trump had argued that Congressional notification was unnecessary, citing security concerns.
However, opposition from some Republicans, including Senators Lisa Murkowski, Rand Paul, and Susan Collins, highlighted growing unease among lawmakers about the erosion of congressional oversight on military actions. The group argued that unilateral executive action would undermine the Constitution's separation of powers.
Paul defended his decision to back the war powers resolution, stating it was necessary to uphold the Constitution's principles. "The Constitution — specifically, thoughtfully — vested the power of initiating war and declaring war to Congress," he said.
The outcome reflects a deepening divide between Trump's executive authority and congressional oversight in US foreign policy. While the President has claimed broad latitude to act unilaterally, lawmakers have pushed back against what they see as an attempt to erode checks on his power.
As the US midterms approach, some Republicans are risking their careers to speak out against Trump's policies. For Collins, one of three Republican senators who voted with Democrats on the war powers resolution, the cost may be high - but she argues that upholding constitutional principles is worth it.
. I mean, we're talking about a President who's basically saying he can do whatever he wants without Congress agreeing to it 
. It's like, what's the point of having checks and balances if nobody's going to enforce them? 
. And what about all the times he's been criticized for being impulsive or making reckless decisions? Shouldn't we at least try to rein in his power a bit? 
. Are they trying to distance themselves from him or what? 
But then other Republicans say it's okay because the Secretary of State (Marco Rubio) will tell them when they can go to war. 
And what's with the 50-50 vote? How does that even work? 
. And what's with all these Republicans who are suddenly finding their voices? They're either getting bought off or they're just plain scared 
. Newsflash: upholding constitutional principles isn't about saving your career, it's about doing the right thing 
. We need to stop worrying about our own interests and start thinking about what's best for this country 
. This is exactly why we need more oversight and less executive overreach 
.
. It seems like some lawmakers are just giving in to Trump's demands without even thinking about the bigger picture 
. The Constitution's separation of powers is meant to be a balance, not a one-way street 
. It's time for some folks to take a closer look at what's happening and actually think about the consequences before casting their votes 
.
. The situation there seems pretty dire, and if we're just gonna let Trump go rogue without any checks in place, things could get messy 
. We need some real leaders who'll stand up for what's right, even if it means going against the President 
.
. That'd be pretty cool 
. It's one thing to support a president who gets it right, but when you're not sure what their next move will be... 
. I'm not saying all Republicans are against it or anything, but if we're gonna have a democratic republic, shouldn't we make sure our leaders are being transparent about their actions? 
. Trump's been trying to flex his executive muscles, but it's time for him to remember that there are limits to his power #SeparationOfPowersMatters
. I mean, think about it, we have a situation where the President wants to go to war without Congress' approval and some folks in the Senate are just like "meh, let's not rock the boat". It's like they're saying "hey, we don't want to be bothered with all that constitutional stuff".
. And what really gets me is that some of these Republicans who voted against this resolution are like "oh, we're only doing it for the Constitution" but I'm calling foul - they're basically saying they're only doing it because it looks good on paper, not because they actually care about upholding the principles of our democracy 
.
.
. Anyway, it's definitely a divisive moment in US politics 
.
.
. Collins, I love you, girl! You're risking your career for what's right, but it's about time someone stood up to Trump 
.
It's like the whole system is broken. We need more accountability, not less! 
But at the same time, we gotta think about national security and stuff... it's a tough one, you know? 
I'm not saying Trump's always gonna be right, but he's trying to do what's best for the country. Maybe ppl are just getting too caught up in politics and losing sight of that 
. senators paul & murkowski are like the only ones speaking truth to power 
. Guess we'll just have to wait and see if he tries to muscle in on more countries