Politics in D.C. usually feels like a choreographed wrestling match where everyone knows their part. But every once in a while, something happens that actually breaks the script. Right now, that "something" is the fallout from the administration’s recent military operations in Venezuela.
It’s not just the usual suspects making noise. While it’s expected for the opposition to push back, we’re seeing a fascinating, if fragile, coalition of Democrats and some Republicans criticize the administration’s military strikes and the broader handling of the capture of Nicolás Maduro.
Basically, the argument isn't just about whether Maduro was a "bad guy"—most folks on both sides of the aisle agree he was. The real fight is about the Constitution, the War Powers Act, and whether a President can just decide to "run" another country on a whim.
The Strike That Started the Firestorm
On January 3, 2026, U.S. forces carried out a high-stakes raid to capture Nicolás Maduro. The administration framed it as a "law enforcement operation" to bring him to justice on drug trafficking charges.
But it didn't look like a standard police bust. It involved airstrikes and special operations. To many in Congress, if it looks like a war and acts like a war, it’s a war.
Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA) has been leading the charge, arguing that the White House completely bypassed Congress. He’s not alone. Interestingly, the pushback has a distinct "odd couple" vibe. You’ve got progressive Democrats like Jim McGovern (D-MA) standing shoulder-to-shoulder with libertarian-leaning Republicans like Rand Paul (R-KY).
🔗 Read more: How Much Did Trump Add to the National Debt Explained (Simply)
Senator Paul basically summed up the frustration when he called it "an absurdity" to suggest that capturing a head of state and bombing targets isn't an act of war. His take? If we wait until people are already dying to call it a war, it’s a bit too late to follow the Constitution.
The War Powers Tussle in the Senate
Last Wednesday, the Senate floor turned into a legit battleground over a War Powers Resolution. This wasn't just a symbolic gesture; it was an attempt to legally tether the administration's hands.
Initially, it looked like the resolution might actually pass. Five Republicans—Rand Paul, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Josh Hawley, and Todd Young—actually joined the Democrats to move the bill forward.
Then, the White House turned up the heat.
The pressure was intense. Reports suggest "terse" phone calls and public insults followed. By the time the final vote rolled around, the coalition buckled. Hawley and Young flipped their votes after the administration assured them no "ground troops" were staying in Venezuela.
💡 You might also like: The Galveston Hurricane 1900 Orphanage Story Is More Tragic Than You Realized
In the end, Vice President JD Vance had to step in to break a 50-50 tie. The resolution died, but the message was sent: the administration’s "blank check" for military action is starting to show some serious cracks.
Why the Bipartisan Alarm?
So, why do Democrats and some Republicans criticize the administration’s military strikes when the target was a widely disliked dictator? Honestly, it comes down to three big things:
- The Constitution (Article I): Lawmakers are protective of their power. Only Congress has the power to declare war. When an administration uses the military for "regime change" without asking, it makes members of Congress feel irrelevant.
- The "Bait and Switch": Many Republicans, including Chip Roy (R-TX), were originally okay with maritime strikes to stop drug flow. But they got whiplash when the mission suddenly turned into a full-scale operation to "run" Venezuela and take over its oil sales.
- The Greenland Factor: It sounds like a fever dream, but the administration’s simultaneous threats toward Greenland (a NATO ally territory) have put everyone on edge. If the White House is willing to use the military in Venezuela without permission, what’s stopping them from doing something equally wild elsewhere?
A Clash of Legal Theories
The administration's legal team is using a pretty creative defense. They're claiming that because they labeled drug cartels as "terrorist organizations," they have the authority to strike under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF).
Critics think that’s a massive reach.
Democratic Representative Pramila Jayapal called it an "unacceptable violation." Even Republican Mike Lee has chimed in, saying the Constitution has to matter regardless of which party is in the White House.
📖 Related: Why the Air France Crash Toronto Miracle Still Changes How We Fly
What Happens Next?
The Senate vote might be over, but the fight isn't. House Democrats are planning their own version of the War Powers Resolution as soon as next week.
Expect more drama surrounding the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) too. We've already seen the House pass a version that tries to claw back power by withholding 25% of the Defense Secretary's travel budget until the administration hands over the unedited videos and legal orders behind these strikes.
If you’re trying to keep track of where this goes, keep an eye on these specific developments:
- The House Vote: Watch if more "Main Street" Republicans join the Democrats. If the House passes a resolution, it puts the Senate Republicans who flipped back in the hot seat.
- Oil Strategy: The administration has been vocal about wanting to control Venezuelan oil. This is a massive "red flag" for non-interventionists on the right and environmentalists on the left.
- Judicial Challenges: Groups like the Brennan Center are already calling these strikes unconstitutional. It’s only a matter of time before this ends up in a courtroom.
The reality is that "regime change" has a messy history in the U.S. Whether it's the 1989 invasion of Panama or the long wars in the Middle East, these things rarely go as planned. By speaking up now, these lawmakers are trying to prevent Venezuela from becoming the next "forever war."
It’s a rare moment where "checking the executive branch" has become more important than "winning" for your own party. Whether that remains true as the 2026 midterms approach is anyone’s guess.
To stay informed, you should follow the House Foreign Affairs Committee's upcoming hearings. They are expected to subpoena the specific executive orders used to justify the January 3rd raid, which will likely provide the first look at the actual legal framework the administration is using to bypass Congressional approval.