Did any members of Congress introduce a War Powers Resolution concerning Trump's Venezuela policy?
Executive summary
Yes. Members of Congress in both chambers introduced and pushed War Powers-style measures aimed at limiting President Trump’s military actions related to Venezuela: Senator Tim Kaine (with other Democrats including Adam Schiff and allies such as Sen. Rand Paul in limited GOP support) led a Senate War Powers resolution that failed on Nov. 6, 2025 (51–49 vote) [1] [2] [3]. In the House, Progressive Caucus leaders — notably Rep. Ilhan Omar — formally introduced a War Powers Resolution in September seeking to terminate unauthorized hostilities involving Venezuela [4].
1. A Senate showdown: a narrowly failed War Powers bid
Senators brought a War Powers resolution to the floor in early November explicitly designed to block the Trump administration from taking military action inside Venezuela without congressional authorization; the motion to bring the resolution up was defeated along party lines, with the final tally reported as 51–49 or 51–48 in different accounts, reflecting a narrow GOP-led defeat [1] [2] [5] [6]. Sponsors framed the measure as a congressional check to stop an administration buildup and possible strikes against Venezuela; opponents, including many Republicans, argued the measure would unduly constrain presidential military flexibility [3] [6].
2. Bipartisan but limited support: who voted and why
The resolution drew almost all Democrats and a small number of Republicans in favor — for example, Sen. Rand Paul crossed party lines in some reporting — but the GOP largely lined up behind the White House, blocking passage [5] [6]. Advocates called the vote a response to reported lethal strikes on vessels and a U.S. military buildup in the Caribbean; critics warned the War Powers measure was an intrusion on executive military authority and potentially harmful to counternarcotics operations [2] [3] [6].
3. House action: Progressive Caucus introduces a formal War Powers text
House progressives, led by Deputy Chair Rep. Ilhan Omar, introduced a War Powers Resolution on Sept. 24, 2025, to “terminate unauthorized U.S. military hostilities against Venezuela” and against transnational criminal organizations the administration had designated as terrorists [4]. The Progressive Caucus framed the resolution as a response to what they described as extrajudicial killings at sea and an unauthorized escalation that circumvents Congress [4].
4. Multiple tracks: House maneuvers to force a binding vote
Beyond introduction, House Democrats signaled moves to force a binding vote that could block or limit the president’s ability to expand strikes in Venezuela without direct congressional approval, indicating parliamentary pressure even where Senate votes stalled [7]. Military and regional risks — and reports of dozens killed in strikes off Venezuela — drove urgency among some lawmakers to reassert congressional authority [8] [9].
5. Competing narratives about legality and necessity
Administration officials argued some actions were counternarcotics operations and denied plans for strikes on Venezuelan territory; they also contended the strikes did not meet the War Powers Act “hostilities” threshold in some legal arguments [1] [10] [11]. Critics and sponsors of the resolutions responded that the scale and lethal results of strikes and the massive force posture in the Caribbean compelled Congress to act to prevent an unauthorized war [8] [12] [4].
6. Stakes and likely outcomes: why the measures mattered politically
The Senate votes were largely symbolic but still consequential: proponents wanted a public record and to pressure the administration and wavering Republicans; opponents viewed the measures as politically risky constraints on the commander-in-chief during a purported counternarcotics campaign [6] [3]. Given the Senate votes failed and the president would be unlikely to sign a restrictive bill, advocates sought to use House tools and continued public pressure to shape policy even absent immediate statutory restriction [7] [4].
Limitations and what reporting does not say
Available sources document the introduction and floor votes described above and provide vote counts and sponsor names [1] [2] [4]. Available sources do not mention the final legislative status of the House Progressive Caucus resolution beyond its introduction, nor do they provide full roll-call breakdowns for every related House maneuver; those specifics are not found in current reporting provided here [4] [7].
Bottom line
Congress did act: Senate Democrats and some Republicans forced high-profile War Powers votes that failed in the Senate, while House progressives formally introduced a War Powers Resolution in the House to terminate unauthorized hostilities related to Venezuela [1] [2] [4]. The votes exposed clear partisan and intra-party divides over executive military prerogative, counternarcotics claims, and the threshold for congressional intervention [3] [6].