Five Republican senators vote to remind the administration Congressional approval is needed for further action in Venezuela

The vote on a procedural measure to advance the war powers resolution was 52 to 47, as five Republicans voted with every Democrat in favor of moving ahead. One Republican senator did not vote.

Here’s a closer look at each of the GOP lawmakers and how they explained their votes:

Rand Paul of Kentucky: Paul was a co-sponsor of the war powers measure and has been outspoken in his concern across multiple presidencies that the executive branch has overstepped its authority to use military force without congressional consent.

Lisa Murkowski of Alaska: She sided with similar Democratic-led war powers measures in the past, lamenting that White House officials have not provided enough legal justification for attacks on drug traffickers or for the operation to remove Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.

Susan Collins of Maine: Collins said in a statement that voting to limit presidential powers was “necessary” because of Trump’s recent comments about potentially using ground troops and a sustained military engagement in Venezuela.

Josh Hawley of Missouri: Hawley similarly said that Trump’s “boots on the ground” comments illustrated the need to reinforce Congress’ role in approving future military actions. The conservative has been a staunch defender of Trump’s policies in the past.

Todd Young of Indiana: Young expressed support for the operation to capture Maduro but said in a statement that he is concerned about the potential for a long-term military presence in the country: “I — along with what I believe to be the vast majority of Hoosiers — am not prepared to commit American troops to that mission.”

https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2026/01/08/congress/the-5-republicans-who-voted-against-trump-on-war-powers-00716245

https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/us-senate-vote-reining-trump-venezuela-2026-01-08/

 Josh Hawley is 100% correct. This issue needs to be resolved so that this and any future similar instances will have established Congressional guidelines. This "grey area" has long been ignored and should be corrected.

Wow, five apostates out of 53! 

While not exactly a palace revolt, this is mildly encouraging. To know that 8% of the opposition is not completely crazy is heartwarming.

Hawley blaspheming is particularly noteworthy, given his recent history as a loyal, subservient Trump lackey. I wonder if he sees Trump's popularity collapsing and is trying to work his passage by distancing himself from the Turd.

I disagree, though, that this is a grey area or needs resolution. The Constitution is clear and unequivocal regarding the limitations of Presidential power.

What is really needed is impeachment. That won't happen, though.

David, I have to say I am impressed. When you aren't yelling and screaming in you posts, you come up with intelligent and well thought out responses. I have found through my own trials and tribulations it is easier to get your point across this way.

Every president since Nixon has ordered troops to XYZ without Congressional approval. When not initially involving Congress in troop deployments,  the War Powers Act requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of troop deployment with descriptive cause and intent included and further dictates that these conflicts can last no longer than 60 days.

This has been a long-standing area of dispute between the Commander-In-Chief clause of the Constitution (Article 2) vs constitutionally provided Congressional power to actually declare war and fund miltary actions. 

I agree they need to clarify / bolster both these constitutional provisions and somehow make them more complimentary vs at odds from a practical standpoint. It's a good action by Congress for once.

I agree with you that David's conduct has been quite reasonable, for the most part, and he has indeed shown himself capable of meaningfully contributing to a discussion. In fact, I apologize to him for making a couple of snarky comments about him in this thread. His approval of/excuses for this murder are misguided. But he's entitled to his opinion.

The jury's still out on whether this transformation is genuine or brought about by Anthony's admonishment. I guess we'll know in a couple of weeks.

In the meantime, I'll try to honor David's new civility. After all, even if it's temporary--even if it's phony--it's a real breath of fresh air.

I have to agree. Over the last couple days he has demonstrated that he is capable of civil discourse. He has posted mostly thoughtful and good faith comments. 

What is already written into law seems pretty unequivocal to me and not at all in need of clarification or debate.

It seems to me that Congress manages war and the President manages the armed forces. Each has its independent function and powers. 

People talk about the check that Congressional policy imposes on the President. But it works the other way around as well. If the President disapproves of a war declared by Congress, he can simply order the armed forces to stay home (and of course, defend the US and themselves if attacked).

Ultimately, the executive and legislative branches should have to agree before any offensive warlike actions are taken. That's how it was intended.

I would argue it started well before Nixon. The US putting troops into Vietnam and Korea in 1950 comes to mind. Numerous invasions and occupations before that. Woodrow Wilson invaded a couple countries in 1915 

I don't think that the commander-in-chief clause and the war powers clause are in conflict. Congress declares and  finances the war. Once declared the executive executes the war until Congress concludes peace. 

I would argue that Congress does not even have the constitutional authority to delegate this power to the executive. Doing so would be amending the Constitution while bypassing the requirements laid out in article 5. 

Following the spirit of the Constitution we aren't even supposed to have a standing army with which to invade without authorization. The Constitution authorizes a full-time navy, but armies are supposed to be temporary. 

Though you see no need for the ongoing debate between these two provisions, Congress and various administrations have been at odds over them for decades. Sorta like most issues in DC; that's just what they do up there.