The United States Senate rejected this Thursday a bipartisan resolution that sought to force the president Donald Trump not to use military force against Venezuela, unless that action is first approved by Congress. The initiative was rejected by a narrow margin of 51 votes to 49.
READ ALSO
United States attack against a boat in the Caribbean Sea, near Venezuela. Photo:Truth Social @realDonaldTrump
The initiative, promoted by Democratic Senator Tim Kaine and supported by Republican Rand Paul, It sought to make clear that the president cannot order military attacks against the South American country without formal legislative authorization. The vote was scheduled for 5 pm Washington time. The result was known after 6 p.m.
“Congress should not cede its power to any president. If my colleagues believe that a war against drug traffickers at sea or against Venezuela is a good idea, then present an authorization for the use of force and debate it. But do not give that power to the Executive; that contradicts everything that founded this nation,” Kaine said in statements to reporters on Capitol Hill.
The resolution came amid rising tensions over the US military presence in Caribbean and eastern Pacific waters. Since September, the Pentagon has carried out at least 16 attacks against ships accused of transporting drugs. According to official figures, 67 people have died in these operations.
Kaine introduced the resolution on October 16, a day after Trump confirmed that he had authorized the CIA to conduct covert operations inside Venezuela.
“We are going to arrest them by sea and also by land,” the president said then, without specifying details about possible incursions into Venezuelan territory.
The legislative initiative sought to put limits on a campaign that, according to its promoters, could quickly escalate into open conflict.
In recent weeks, the Trump administration began to inform Congress about the bombings, amid complaints from senators and representatives of both parties demanding to know the legal basis and intelligence that supports the operations.
Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, and Donald Trump. Photo:EFE
Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, and Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, They met this Wednesday with the leaders of Congress and the chairmen of the national security committees.
However, several Democratic lawmakers left the session dissatisfied. “Nothing in the legal opinion even mentions Venezuela,” warned Senator Mark Warner, Democratic head of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Although some Republican congressmen, such as House Speaker Mike Johnson, assure that the government “knows exactly who is on the ships and what they are carrying,” others warn that operations pose humanitarian and legal risks.
Senator Rand Paul – co-author of the resolution – criticized the lack of transparency about the victims from the Senate floor.
“If justice matters to anyone then they would at least let us know who we are killing before we do it, or what evidence there is of their guilt,” Paul said.
Organizations declare a military intervention in Venezuela ‘disastrous’
Before the result of the Senate vote was known, 43 American civil society organizations sent a letter to the Senate urging it to approve the Kaine-Paul resolution, called SJRes. 90.
READ ALSO
In the document, to which EL TIEMPO had access, The organizations warn that military action against Venezuela would be “unconstitutional, unpopular and disastrous” for the region.
“The American people have made it clear that they do not want more regime change wars,” they point out, recalling the precedents of Iraq and Libya.
According to a survey cited in the letter, 55% of Americans oppose an invasion of Venezuela, while only 15% would support it. Even among Trump voters, barely a third support any use of military force.
The initiative to stop Trump is promoted by a bipartisan group. Photo:iStock / Archive
The organizations argue that an armed conflict would have devastating consequences. Among them an increase in violence, new migration crises and greater regional instability.
“The repercussions – the signatories maintain – would be felt directly throughout Latin America and even on the US border.”
They also warn that basing an intervention on unproven accusations about the so-called “Cartel of the Suns” would be “dangerous and irresponsible.”
Experts agree that there is no hierarchical structure led by Nicolás Maduro, but rather a loose network of corruption within the security forces. “Basing a war on such weak premises is reminiscent of the mistakes that led to Iraq.” says the letter.
The letter is signed by the Center for Economic and Political Research (CEPR), one of the main think tanks Washington progressives, and is also supported by religious, humanitarian and human rights organizations such as Action Corps, Alliance of Baptists, American Friends Service Committee, Antiwar.com, Church World Service, Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL) and Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns.
It is also subscribed to by political and academic activism groups such as the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, Justice Democrats, Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity, RootsAction and World BEYOND War, among others.
Although the resolution could be approved in the Senate, its legislative future is uncertain. The House of Representatives, under Republican control, will probably not act on it, leaving little chance of it becoming law.
Maduro warns that the US plans to carry out an armed attack against Venezuela in the very short term. Photo:AFP – EL TIEMPO Archive
Even so, analysts point out that the mere fact of debating it is significant. “The issue once again puts on the table the limits of presidential power to initiate armed conflicts and the validity of the War Powers Resolution of 1973,” explained a legislative advisor consulted.
That rule requires the president to consult Congress before introducing troops into hostilities, except in cases of emergency or declared war. In theory, If there is no legislative authorization, the president must cease operations within a period of 60 days, deadline that – according to Senate sources – already expired this week.
The Trump administration maintains that these attacks do not constitute “hostilities” because they are carried out with long-distance drones, without directly exposing US military personnel. However, for the authors of the resolution, this argument is an “arbitrary and dangerous” interpretation of the law.
READ ALSO
Kaine and Paul had already tried to pass a similar resolution in October, when they sought to stop bombing ships in the Caribbean, but it was blocked by Republicans.
For the promoters of the SJRes. 90, this Thursday’s vote is also a political test.
“Future generations will remember who opposed an unnecessary war and who helped pave the way for it,” the signatory organizations warned in their letter.
Although the measure is unlikely to succeed in the Lower House, Their discussion exposes a fracture that is beginning to be perceived in Washington regarding the scope of presidential power in military matters. and Congress’s role in overseeing modern warfare.
SERGIO GÓMEZ MASERI – EL TIEMPO Correspondent – Washington
