United States Vice President JD Vance has cast the tie-breaking vote to defeat a war powers resolution that would have forced President Donald Trump to seek Congress\u2019s approval before taking any further military action in Venezuela.<\/p>\n
The Senate\u2019s session on Wednesday evening came to a nail-biting conclusion, as the fate of the resolution ended up resting on the shoulders of two Republican politicians.<\/p>\n list of 3 items<\/span>end of list<\/span><\/section>\n Senators Todd Young of Indiana and Josh Hawley of Missouri had voted last week<\/a>, as part of a group of five breakaway Republicans, to put the resolution to a full Senate vote. With unanimous support from Democrats, the measure advanced with 52 votes in favour, 47 against.<\/p>\n But supporters of the resolution could only afford to lose one vote in order to secure the bill\u2019s passage. By Wednesday, it had lost two: both Young and Hawley.<\/p>\n The final vote was evenly split, 50 to 50, allowing Vance to act as tie-breaker and defeat the resolution.<\/p>\n Hawley signalled early in the day that he had decided to withdraw his support. But Young was a wild card until shortly before the final vote took place.<\/p>\n \u201cAfter numerous conversations with senior national security officials, I have received assurances that there are no American troops in Venezuela,\u201d Young wrote<\/a> on social media.<\/p>\n \u201cI\u2019ve also received a commitment that if President Trump were to determine American forces are needed in major military operations in Venezuela, the Administration will come to Congress in advance to ask for an authorization of force.\u201d<\/p>\n Young also shared a letter, dated Wednesday, from Secretary of State Marco Rubio, offering lukewarm assurances that Congress would be notified ahead of any future military action in Venezuela.<\/p>\n \u201cShould the President determine that he needs to introduce US Armed Forces into hostilities in major military operation in Venezuela, he would seek congressional authorizations in advance (circumstances permitting),\u201d Rubio wrote.<\/p>\n The latest war powers resolution arrived in response to a surprise announcement on January 3 that Trump had launched military action to topple Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro.<\/p>\n Explosions were reported in the Venezuelan capital of Caracas and nearby military bases, and Trump appeared in a broadcast hours later to announce that the US had abducted Maduro and transported him to the US to face criminal trial.<\/p>\n Maduro\u2019s wife, Cilia Flores, was also captured as part of the operation.<\/p>\n Two US service members were injured in the attack, and as many as 80 people in Venezuela were killed, including Cuban security personnel involved in guarding Maduro.<\/p>\n \u201cWe\u2019re going to run the country until such time as we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition,\u201d Trump said in his speech announcing the attack.<\/p>\n He and Rubio then fielded questions about whether Congress had been notified about the operation. They acknowledged they did not notify lawmakers in advance.<\/p>\n \u201cThis was not the kind of mission that you can do congressional notification on,\u201d Rubio said. \u201cIt was a trigger-based mission.\u201d<\/p>\n Trump, meanwhile, argued that congressional notification had been a liability to the mission\u2019s security. \u201cCongress will leak, and we don\u2019t want leakers,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n Normally, the US Constitution divides up military authority between the legislative and executive branches. While the president is considered the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, only Congress has the power to declare war and authorise military action.<\/p>\n But that division of power has become gradually eroded, as the executive branch has exercised greater authority over the military.<\/p>\n In recent decades, presidents have often justified unilateral military action by referring to authorisations of military force (AUMFs) approved by Congress in the wake of the attacks on September 11, 2001.<\/p>\n But military action in Venezuela falls outside of the purview of those authorisations, raising questions about the legal justification for the January attack.<\/p>\nRecommended Stories <\/h2>\n
![\"Josh](\"https:\/\/www.aljazeera.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/AP25180456466825-1768441223.jpg?w=770&resize=770%2C513&quality=80\")
Legal questions about the Venezuela attack<\/h2>\n
![\"Todd](\"https:\/\/www.aljazeera.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/AP25073623220045-1768441551.jpg?w=770&resize=770%2C513&quality=80\")