Table of Contents
James Fite
Editor at large
When Congress comes back from Christmas and New Year’s break, the Senate will vote on a war powers resolution to block further military action by the Trump administration in Venezuela. After US forces raided Caracas early Saturday morning and arrested Nicolás Maduro, most Democrats – and even a few Republicans – in Congress declared it an overreach on Trump’s part.
But any congressional attempt to force Trump out of the South American country unless and until Congress approves his presence would still require Trump’s signature. Can lawmakers opposed to the administration’s actions manage a simple majority in both chambers to pass the resolution? It’s a tall order, but maybe. The real question is whether they can then pull a two-thirds majority in both chambers to override his veto.
Success in the Senate?
Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA) wasted no time Saturday, January 3, in declaring his intent to force a vote in the Senate this week to block further military action in Venezuela by the Trump administration. Co-sponsoring the bill along with him will be Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Adam Schiff (D-CA), and Kentucky Republican Rand Paul.
“It is long past time for Congress to reassert its critical constitutional role in matters of war, peace, diplomacy and trade,” Sen Kaine said in a statement. “My bipartisan resolution stipulating that we should not be at war with Venezuela absent a clear congressional authorization will come up for a vote next week.”
“We’ve entered the 250th year of American democracy and cannot allow it to devolve into the tyranny that our founders fought to escape,” he continued.
A war powers resolution only requires a simple majority in the Senate, as it’s immune to filibuster. Since the vice president is fully on board with the administration’s actions, those in favor of this can’t count on his tie-breaking vote. As such, they need a full 51 senators on their side. Let’s assume they’ll have 100 per cent unity from the Democratic Party – which is not necessarily a safe bet – they’ll need to pull three more Republicans in addition to Sen Paul.
Sens Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and Josh Hawley of Missouri are all possible candidates who have expressed concern and might cross the aisle, but most of the rest of the GOP seems to support the president in this matter. As well, there may not be full unity amongst Democrats. Sen John Fetterman, a Democrat, joined his Republican counterpart, Sen Dave McCormick, in praising the capture of Maduro. “Grateful for our US military personnel that handled these orders in Venezuela with precision. I maintain that we have the STRONGEST and MOST LETHAL military in the world – today proves that even more,” he posted on X just before noon on Saturday, closing out his post with an American flag emoji. Should he maintain that stance, all four of the aforementioned Republican maybes would have to cross the aisle – and no other Democrats could defect.
Hopeless in the House
In the House of Representatives, however, this resolution seems even more hopeless. The lower chamber already voted 213 to 211 to kill Rep Jim McGovern’s (D-MA) proposal which would have directed the president to remove all US forces from hostilities with or against Venezuela without congressional approval. Another resolution, this one sponsored by Rep Gregory Meeks (D-NY), to disengage US armed forces from any hostilities with “any presidentially designated terrorist organization in the Western Hemisphere” was shot down as well with a vote of 216 to 210.
Republicans in the House under Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) seem just as likely to shut down this resolution as they were the prior ones, and this time they aren’t alone. “The capture of the brutal, illegitimate ruler of Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro, who oppressed Venezuela’s people is welcome news for my friends and neighbors who fled his violent, lawless, and disastrous rule,” Rep Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a Florida Democrat, wrote on X. “However, cutting off the head of the snake is fruitless if it just regrows.”
Her final words in that post seemingly go beyond supporting the Trump administration’s initial raid: they imply she’s also on board with Trump’s plan to have the US run the nation until the proper transfer of power can occur.
A Day Late and a Dollar Short – A Bill Doomed From the Start
In a sense, this resolution comes a day late and a dollar short, as the saying goes. It’s late in the sense that the US military struck the capital of a foreign nation and abducted the dictator in charge. Was Maduro’s rule legitimate? According to much of the world, no, his election wins were shams, and many governments – including the US – don’t recognize him as the actual president of Venezuela. Still, he was the man in charge, and the military was following his commands. Venezuela hasn’t officially declared war – but that’s a statement that very likely needs the caveat “yet” added to the end.
Maduro is already captured. The primary action has already taken place. Trump has said he plans to run the country until a transfer of power can take place, but, for the most part, the damage, as it were, is done. Should the Venezuelan military, with or without the cartels and other terrorist organizations involved in the country, decide to try and fight back or retaliate, then war it is, whether Congress likes it or not.
But this resolution isn’t just late: it’s quite a bit more than a dollar short.
Achieving even a simple majority of 50 per cent plus one in either chamber of Congress is unlikely, but still technically possible. Even if they succeed in this initial endeavor, however, the resolution must then go to President Trump for his signature. That’s an almost guaranteed veto; it wouldn’t make any sense at all for Trump to sign the resolution unless he simply changes his mind about the whole thing – which, of course, would render the congressional action moot anyway.
If a simple majority is so iffy in either the Senate or the House to begin with, a two-thirds, veto-killing majority in both is nigh impossible. And all 531 voting lawmakers across both chambers (there are presently four vacancies in the House) know this. As such, it’s simply a ‘test vote’ ostensibly designed to get everyone on the record as to where they stand and test whether the Republican majorities are still on team Trump. In reality, it may more accurately be called virtue signaling or progressive pandering. The vote isn’t about taking real action – it’s about looking good to the Democratic Party’s anti-Trump base and maybe driving some voter traffic come Election Day 2026.
This article was originally published by Liberty Nation News.
