Which five Republican senators voted to advance the Venezuela war powers resolution and what reasons did they give?
Executive summary
Five Senate Republicans — Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Todd Young, Josh Hawley and Rand Paul — joined Democrats to advance a war powers resolution intended to bar President Trump from further military actions in Venezuela without congressional authorization [1] [2]. Their publicly stated reasons ranged from constitutional caution about committing troops to demands for greater congressional oversight and commitments from administration officials that future major operations would be brought to Congress [3] [4] [5].
1. Who the five Republicans were and the immediate context
The procedural vote to move the resolution forward passed 52–47 after five Republicans crossed with Democrats: Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Todd Young, Josh Hawley and Rand Paul — a break with most of the GOP in the wake of a U.S. raid that captured Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro and dramatic White House rhetoric about further action [1] [2] [6]. The vote was framed as a rare congressional rebuke of the president and came after Hill briefings in which many lawmakers sought more detail about the operation and the administration’s plans [6] [2].
2. Susan Collins: support for the operation but limits on further engagement
Senator Susan Collins publicly endorsed the precision of the operation to seize Maduro but said she would not support committing U.S. forces to continued or expanded involvement in Venezuela — making clear any future troop commitments should require explicit congressional authorization [3]. Collins’s comments, reported in Newsweek, framed her “yes” as a narrow check against open-ended military entanglement rather than a blanket rebuke of the mission’s execution [3].
3. Josh Hawley: constitutional line on boots on the ground and assurances from briefings
Josh Hawley emphasized a constitutional reading that placing “boots on the ground” would require Congress, and he said his vote reflected that principle; after receiving briefings and assurances from administration officials that additional troop deployments were not planned, he supported advancing the resolution [3] [7]. Multiple outlets reported Hawley’s concern about future troop commitments and noted he was persuaded by administration assurances during follow-up discussions [7] [4].
4. Todd Young: demand for public scrutiny and commitments from Secretary Rubio
Senator Todd Young said he secured a commitment that Secretary of State Marco Rubio would testify publicly before the Foreign Relations Committee about the Venezuela operations, and he stressed the need for public scrutiny and formal congressional authorization before any further large-scale military commitments [5] [4]. Young framed his initial support as a means to ensure transparency and congressional involvement before escalation [5].
5. Lisa Murkowski: unease after a “real incursion” and the need for oversight
Lisa Murkowski joined the bipartisan move amid what some lawmakers characterized as the difference between prior hypothetical scenarios and a “real incursion” into foreign territory; her vote aligned with a strand of Republican caution that the Maduro operation required clearer congressional involvement before any follow-on missions [1]. Reporting noted Murkowski’s vote was part of a small GOP cohort expressing unease about the scope and implications of on-the-ground actions [8] [1].
6. Rand Paul: co-sponsor and worries about war powers language and honesty
Rand Paul, who co-sponsored the resolution, argued that the administration should be transparent about whether its actions amount to war and warned against language or actions that would commit Americans to open-ended hostilities; his sponsorship and vote signaled a libertarian constitutionalist objection to executive war-making without congressional approval [2] [5]. Paul’s public comments framed the debate as one about accurately characterizing the administration’s operations and protecting lawmakers’ constitutional role [5].
7. Competing narratives and what followed
After the initial advance, White House pressure and GOP leadership lobbying produced a reversal by two of the five — Hawley and Young — in a later procedural fight, allowing Republicans to block the final resolution [4] [9]. President Trump subsequently attacked the senators who had voted to advance the measure, underscoring partisan and intra-party tensions over presidential war powers and oversight [6] [10]. Reporting also documents variation in how outlets listed the five Republicans, reflecting the fluidity of votes and rapid political maneuvering on the floor [8] [1].