Senate Divided Over Presidential Authority in Overseas Military Operations

A deeply divided U.S. Senate on Wednesday narrowly rejected a Democratic-led resolution that sought to halt continued American military operations off the coast of Venezuela, citing constitutional concerns about presidential war powers and congressional oversight.

The 48–51 vote reflected sharp partisan lines, with nearly all Republicans opposing the measure and most Democrats supporting it. The proposal, introduced by Senators Adam Schiff of California and Tim Kaine of Virginia, aimed to require explicit congressional authorization before the U.S. military could continue targeted actions in the region.

“There has been no congressional authorization for the use of force in this way,” Schiff said during the floor debate. “While the administration’s intentions may be rooted in national security, the Constitution demands consultation and transparency. Without them, we risk drifting into another undeclared conflict.”

The resolution was brought under the War Powers Act of 1973 — legislation passed after the Vietnam War to prevent presidents from engaging in hostilities without Congress’s approval. Schiff and Kaine argued that the White House’s recent operations set a troubling precedent by expanding executive power to act abroad without legislative consent.

In recent weeks, the administration confirmed several precision strikes against vessels it claimed posed a threat to U.S. interests in international waters near South America. Officials have described the actions as necessary to protect national security and deter transnational criminal activity.

However, critics in both parties say the administration has yet to provide Congress with intelligence reports, specific targets, or the legal rationale justifying continued military engagement in the area.

Senator Kaine, long an advocate for reasserting congressional authority over the use of force, said the lack of consultation was “unacceptable.”

“The White House cannot continue to engage in hostilities abroad without the consent of the people’s representatives,” Kaine said. “Our system was designed for shared decision-making, especially when lives are at stake.”

The White House has maintained that the strikes fall within the president’s constitutional powers to defend the United States and its citizens from external threats. Secretary of State Marco Rubio defended the administration’s actions following a closed-door meeting with Senate Republicans.

“These are precise, targeted operations designed to protect the American people from imminent threats,” Rubio said. “The president is acting within his authority and in full compliance with national and international law.”

Not all members of the president’s party agreed. Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, one of the most consistent advocates for limiting presidential war powers, delivered a pointed speech on the Senate floor questioning the moral and legal basis for such actions.

“Before any president uses lethal force abroad, we deserve transparency,” Paul said. “We deserve to know who is being targeted, why they are being targeted, and under what evidence. Anything less is an affront to the rule of law.”

Other lawmakers pushed back, arguing that delays caused by prolonged congressional debate could endanger American personnel and allies overseas. Senator Mike Crapo of Idaho defended the administration’s position, saying it was “both lawful and necessary to ensure security in an increasingly unstable region.”

The debate highlighted a broader, long-standing struggle between Congress and the executive branch over control of military power. Since the passage of the War Powers Resolution, successive presidents from both parties have tested its limits, often citing the need for swift action to defend U.S. interests abroad.

Earlier this year, a similar resolution introduced by Senator Kaine sought to restrict the administration’s ability to conduct air operations in the Middle East without explicit authorization. That effort was also narrowly defeated.

Schiff warned that continued disregard for congressional approval could have far-reaching implications. “We are now authorizing unilateral strikes thousands of miles from our shores, without oversight and without accountability,” he said. “If we accept this as normal, what’s to prevent other nations from doing the same and calling it self-defense?”

The failed resolution underscores a deep divide in Washington — not only over foreign policy, but also over the balance of power between branches of government. As operations continue overseas, lawmakers from both parties say they plan to revisit the issue in the coming weeks.

“This is not about one president or one party,” Kaine said after the vote. “It’s about whether we still believe in the constitutional framework our founders gave us — one that requires collective judgment before we use force abroad. That question remains unresolved, and it’s one we must keep asking.”