Es verdad que el congreso de USA aprobó el ataque a Venezuela
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
No — Congress has not approved an attack on Venezuela; multiple congressional measures made clear lawmakers have not granted a formal Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) or otherwise authorized strikes on Venezuelan territory, and votes in both chambers have rejected or blocked legislation that would have handed the president that authority [1] [2] [3].
1. The constitutional baseline: Congress’s war power has not been exercised in favor of an attack
Senators and representatives who drafted war-powers legislation emphasized that “we have not authorized the use of force against Venezuela,” and lawmakers introduced and debated resolutions intended to make that explicit — a clear sign that Congress has not given blanket permission for an invasion or sustained campaign [1] [3]. Legal scholars cited by congressional and university fora have reached the same conclusion: there is no existing statute that authorizes use of force against Venezuela or Venezuelan-linked nonstate actors, and the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs do not reach this situation [3].
2. Votes on the floor: measures to restrict the president’s actions failed, not succeeded
In recent House votes lawmakers narrowly defeated Democratic-led measures that would have removed U.S. forces from hostilities with or against Venezuela unless Congress authorized such action, and the House rejected attempts to force pre-authorization before further strikes — the procedural outcome was defeat for the restraining resolutions, not passage of an authorization for attack [2] [4]. Senate Republicans likewise blocked a November motion that would have prevented attacks on Venezuelan territory without congressional authorization, reinforcing that Congress has not enacted an affirmative AUMF or similar approval [5].
3. Administration’s posture: claiming authority for limited strikes, insisting larger moves need Congress
The White House and Pentagon have defended a series of drone and naval strikes against vessels they say were narcotics traffickers, arguing those operations do not require new congressional authorization because they are limited and not directed at Venezuelan soil — while some senior White House aides conceded that “activity on land” would require congressional approval [4] [6]. That defense has been contentious: lawmakers and legal experts question whether the strikes comply with the War Powers Resolution and international law, and some members demanded classified briefings and footage [7] [8].
4. Legal and international-law critics: no legal basis announced, many experts skeptical
Experts cited by academic and media outlets argue that the U.S. has not shown a clear domestic or international legal justification for strikes framed as counter‑drug operations, and Perry World House and international-law scholars say no statute authorizes force against Venezuela and that UN Security Council authorization or self-defense doctrine is absent here [3] [7]. The BBC and other outlets reported that prominent international-law voices called several of the strikes potentially illegal, and congressional offices demanded unedited strike footage and legal memos that the Pentagon has been reluctant to release [7] [8].
5. Politics and messaging: Republicans, Democrats, and mixed signals on the hill
Some Republican lawmakers publicly backed the administration’s campaign and received assurances from White House officials that an attack on Venezuelan soil was not planned, which helped defeat Democratic attempts to force pre-authorization votes [9] [10]. At the same time, bipartisan measures in the defense bill and oversight demands — such as requiring unedited videos of strikes — indicate Congress is asserting oversight without having granted authorization for a broader war [11].
6. Bottom line and limits of reporting
The factual record in the reporting shows Congress has not approved an attack on Venezuela: lawmakers repeatedly stated there is no authorization, introduced measures to prevent unauthorized strikes, and defeated those measures rather than approve a use of force [1] [2] [3]. Reporting does show the House and Senate debated and voted on related resolutions and that the administration claims certain strikes fall within presidential authority — but available sources do not document any enacted AUMF or other congressional statute that authorizes a full attack on Venezuelan territory [4] [3]. If additional classified agreements or later votes exist beyond these reports, those are not reflected in the sources provided.