Which Republican senators voted with Democrats on the Venezuela war‑powers resolution and what reasons did each give?
Executive summary
Five Senate Republicans—Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Rand Paul, Josh Hawley and Todd Young—joined all Democrats to advance a War Powers Resolution aimed at curbing President Trump’s ability to order further military action in Venezuela; the procedural 52–47 vote marked a rare GOP rebuke before two of the five later reversed course amid White House assurances [1] [2] [3]. Each lawmaker offered distinct rationales: concerns about potential “boots on the ground,” constitutional prerogatives of Congress, the reality of a U.S. incursion, and oral assurances from administration officials that future ground combat would not occur without congressional input [4] [5] [6] [7] [8].
1. Susan Collins — “Boots on the ground” raised the alarm
Senator Susan Collins publicly said she supported invoking the War Powers Act because of the President’s public comments suggesting the possibility of “boots on the ground” and sustained U.S. engagement in Venezuela, a prospect she explicitly rejected, framing her vote as a check prompted by those remarks [4]. Collins was one of the three GOP senators who stood firm in their support for the measure even after intense pressure from the White House and party leaders, and she was pictured consulting with Democratic and Republican colleagues after the debate [2] [8].
2. Lisa Murkowski — institutional caution and congressional prerogative
Senator Lisa Murkowski joined Collins and others in advancing the resolution, reflecting a strand of GOP concern about preserving Congress’s constitutional role over declarations of war and preventing an unchecked escalation, particularly after a high‑risk raid in Venezuela that many lawmakers described as a consequential threshold [2] [9]. Murkowski’s vote was reported alongside her Republican colleagues as a signal that some senators wanted clearer congressional involvement before any future expansion of hostilities [5] [8].
3. Rand Paul — calling the Venezuela action an invasion that requires scrutiny
Kentucky’s Rand Paul framed his yes vote in stark terms, characterizing the operation as “a real invasion of a foreign country” and arguing that the vote reflected growing Republican seriousness about the implications of U.S. military actions in Venezuela; he emphasized the need for Congress to weigh in after what he described as an actual incursion [5]. Paul also recounted having a “spirited conversation” with the president about the issue and was vocal about treating the raid as concrete, not hypothetical, when deciding to back the resolution [1] [5].
4. Josh Hawley — persuaded by administration assurances but initially cautious
Senator Josh Hawley was among the five who initially supported moving the resolution forward, citing constitutional readings that future commitments of U.S. troops should involve Congress; he later reversed that position after Secretary of State Marco Rubio (and other administration figures) reassured him that no ground troops would be sent to Venezuela and that Congress would be consulted if that changed, a guarantee Hawley said made the measure unnecessary [7] [8]. Hawley’s shift illustrates the narrow margin and intense behind‑the‑scenes lobbying that followed the procedural vote [10].
5. Todd Young — vote about potential future action, not completed operations
Senator Todd Young described his vote as aimed at constraining possible future military commitments rather than revisiting completed operations, saying his concern was “potential future military action, not completed successful operations,” and that he sought and ultimately received “personal assurances” from administration officials that the U.S. would not commit ground forces without congressional authorization [6] [3] [8]. Those assurances were central to Young’s later decision to flip and help sustain a point of order that ultimately blocked the resolution’s final passage [3] [11].
What the split shows and the caveats in reporting
The episode exposed an unusual fissure in the GOP between senators asserting congressional war powers and a White House aggressively defending its latitude after the Maduro raid, and it underlined how oral assurances from senior officials can short‑circuit legislative checks—two Republicans who initially voted with Democrats ultimately flipped after receiving such assurances [9] [3]. Reporting ties each senator to publicly stated reasons, but the record also shows rapid private lobbying and procedural maneuvers that influenced outcomes; if a particular senator’s verbatim remark is not quoted in the sources provided, that limitation is acknowledged rather than speculated upon [8] [1].