Washington in Turmoil: U.S. Senate Slams Trump Over Venezuela

2026-06-20 23:56:59

Credit: Adobe Stock

A resolution with far-reaching constitutional implications

Resolution S.J.Res.90, introduced on October 16, 2025, but which had until now never managed to overcome procedural hurdles, is based on a particularly strong legal and constitutional argument. Its preamble sets forth six fundamental facts: first, that “Congress has the solemn power to declare war” under Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution; second, that Congress has “never declared war on Venezuela or on any person or organization in Venezuela, nor enacted a specific statutory authorization for the use of military force in Venezuela or against Venezuela.” The text also emphasizes that U.S. military actions constitute either hostilities or a “situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances.”

The arguments put forward by the resolution’s authors highlight several elements of particular concern to lawmakers: the authorization reportedly granted to the Central Intelligence Agency to conduct covert lethal operations in Venezuela; the significant increase in U.S. military resources, personnel, and operations near Venezuela; and statements by U.S. government officials regarding the planning of ground strikes in Venezuela. These elements, according to the senators, “indicate the imminent involvement of U.S. armed forces in hostilities in Venezuela or against Venezuela.” The resolution specifically emphasizes that the question of whether U.S. forces should be engaged in hostilities in Venezuela should be subject to “a full briefing to Congress and the American public on the issues at stake, a public debate in Congress, and a vote by Congress as provided for by the Constitution.”

The Legal Mechanisms of the Resolution

From a legal standpoint, the resolution draws on specific legislative mechanisms provided for under U.S. law to regulate presidential powers regarding war. It refers to Section 1013 of the Department of State Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1984 and 1985 (50 U.S.C. 1546a), which provides that “any resolution or bill seeking to require the withdrawal of United States armed forces from imminent involvement in hostilities without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization shall be considered in accordance with the expedited procedures of section 601(b) of the International Security and Arms Export Control Act of 1976.” This legal basis allows for an expedited review of the resolution in Congress, thereby recognizing the urgency of the situation.

The core of the resolution lies in Section 2, which states that “pursuant to Section 1013 of the Department of State Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1984 and 1985 (50 U.S.C. 1546a), and in accordance with the provisions of section 601(b) of the International Security Assistance and Arms Export Control Act of 1976, Congress hereby directs the President to cease the use of United States armed forces for hostilities in or against Venezuela, unless explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or a specific authorization for the use of military force.” It is important to note that the text includes a construction clause specifying that “nothing in this section shall be construed as preventing the United States from defending itself against an armed attack or the threat of an imminent armed attack,” thereby preserving the traditional right to self-defense.

It fascinates me to see just how much resilience American institutions retain, even when weakened. This resolution is not merely a technical document; it is a genuine act of institutional resistance against imperial temptation. Rand Paul, that eccentric libertarian who spends his time blocking nominations for trivial reasons, has finally found a noble cause. Tim Kaine, that Democrat so cautious he sometimes becomes invisible, has shown he can be courageous. The alliance between these two is like the cat and the mouse suddenly deciding to join forces against the wolf. And you know what? It’s working—at least for now.

Section 3: Trump's Five Traitors

The Identities of the Rebellious Republican Senators

The identities of the five Republican senators who dared to defy Donald Trump present a particularly intriguing political puzzle. Although not all of their exact names were publicly revealed in the articles reviewed, we know that Rand Paul of Kentucky is among the rebels—which is hardly surprising given his consistent libertarian stance on presidential war powers. Maine Senator Susan Collins also confirmed her support in an official statement, declaring that “the situation has now changed” and explaining that while she supports “the operation to capture Nicolás Maduro, which was extraordinary in its precision and complexity,” she does not support “the deployment of additional U.S. forces or any long-term military involvement in Venezuela or Greenland without specific authorization from Congress.”

The three other Republican senators who have joined the Democrats in speaking out are remaining in the background for now, a situation that likely reflects the intense political pressure they are under. Susan Collins, known for her independent spirit but also her political caution, took a considerable risk by publicly opposing Trump. Her decision is all the more significant given that she had always opposed similar measures aimed at limiting presidential powers in the past. Her statement that “the situation has now changed” suggests that the escalation of U.S. military interventions—not only in Venezuela but also with the threats against Greenland—has crossed a red line even for traditionally pragmatic Republicans. These five Republican votes, though numerically modest, represent a potential breach in the united front of the Trump party—a crack that could widen if U.S. military operations continue or intensify.

The Political Price of Defiance

The political cost of this rebellion could be exorbitant for the senators involved. Donald Trump, in his anger, has already declared on his Truth Social platform that these five senators “should never be elected again.” This threat is not to be taken lightly in the current political climate, where Trump’s influence over the Republican primary electorate remains considerable. The five senators now face several major political risks: challenged primaries funded by Trump’s allies, coordinated smear campaigns in conservative media, and exclusion from the Republican Party’s traditional funding networks. Susan Collins, whose re-election race is traditionally close, could find herself particularly vulnerable.

However, these senators may also have calculated that silence was becoming more dangerous than dissent. The prospect of a full-scale war in Venezuela, combined with Trump’s expansionist threats regarding Greenland, creates such an extraordinary situation that some Republicans believe the risk of contradicting the president is ultimately less than the risk of following him blindly. It remains to be seen whether this political assessment will prove correct. American history is full of politicians who have paid a heavy price for opposing their president, but it also contains examples of those whose courage was ultimately rewarded by voters. The five dissenting senators have just placed a monumental bet on the future of their careers and, perhaps, on the future of American democracy itself.

Only five. Five out of fifty Republican senators. It makes my blood run cold. Forty-five chose cowardice; forty-five prioritized their careers over the Constitution; forty-five watched as Donald Trump transformed the United States into an aggressive imperial power and looked the other way. And even then, those five only did so because Trump was talking about invading Greenland on top of Venezuela. That’s what’s most outrageous: there are no principles, only political calculations. The day Trump wants to invade Canada, maybe there’ll be ten. The day he wants to bomb France, maybe there’ll be fifteen. That’s the new Republican normal.

Section 4: Trump's Anger—Between Revenge and Paranoia

A Fiery Reaction on Truth Social

Donald Trump’s reaction to this parliamentary rebuff was immediate, fierce, and entirely in line with his usual political style. On his Truth Social platform, the U.S. president lashed out at what he called the “stupidity” of the five Republican senators who dealt him this blow. His statement was particularly harsh: “ These five senators should never be elected again,” he wrote, adding that “this vote greatly hinders U.S. national defense and security.” Trump also deemed the bill under consideration by the U.S. Senate to be “unconstitutional”—an ironic accusation coming from a president who has systematically ignored constitutional constraints throughout his term.

This “Trumpist” reaction, while predictable in form, reveals several troubling aspects of the U.S. president’s psychological and political state. On the one hand, it shows his total inability to tolerate even the slightest dissent within his own camp—a trait typical of authoritarian leaders who view any criticism as a personal betrayal. On the other hand, the argument that limiting his war powers “greatly impedes national defense and security” demonstrates a deeply personal and expansionist conception of national security, in which the president’s personal interests are conflated with those of the nation. Finally, the accusation of unconstitutionality is particularly ironic—even pathetic—coming from a man who spent his first term systematically ignoring the constitutional checks and balances that limit executive power.

The Implicit Threats Against Dissenters

Beyond direct electoral threats, Trump’s reaction contains much darker undertones. By declaring that these senators “should never be elected again,” he is not merely threatening their political careers: he is implicitly suggesting that they will have to pay a price for their betrayal. In the current context of American politics—where political violence has increased significantly, where Trump’s opponents are regularly harassed and threatened, and where the president himself has repeatedly encouraged actions against his critics—this statement takes on a particularly disturbing dimension.

The senators in question know full well what lies ahead for them: not only systematic smear campaigns in pro-Trump media, but also direct threats against them and their families, organized protests outside their offices, and potentially targeted investigations by federal agencies. Trump has already demonstrated on multiple occasions his ability to use the tools of federal power to punish his political enemies. The threat contained in his Truth Social post must therefore be understood as a very clear warning: not only is your political career at stake, but your personal safety and that of your loved ones could be as well. This is the classic tactic of autocrats: making the cost of dissent so high that no one dares to oppose them.

Every time I read Trump’s reactions, the same thought crosses my mind: how did we get here? How could the country that presented itself as the leader of the free world have fallen into the hands of a man so clearly unfit, so dangerously unstable? His reaction to this resolution is not that of a democratic president; it is that of a mafia boss discovering that one of his lieutenants has spoken to the police. The threats, the paranoia, the conviction that he is above the law… It’s terrifying. What’s even more terrifying is seeing how many people continue to follow him, to applaud his delusions, to justify his threats. There are no longer any safeguards, no decency, no limits.

Section 5: The Context of Operation Maduro

A Spectacular and Illegal Military Raid

To understand the scope and urgency of this resolution, we must look back at the military operation that triggered it. On the night of January 2–3, 2026, a U.S. special forces commando unit carried out an operation of unprecedented audacity in Caracas, the Venezuelan capital. The U.S. soldiers succeeded in kidnapping President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, directly from the presidential palace, subsequently transporting them to New York, where they are to face charges of drug trafficking. This operation, dubbed “Absolute Resolve” by the White House, was carried out without any consultation with Congress, without specific legal authorization, and in flagrant violation of international law.

The details of this operation, gradually revealed by the American press, are staggering. Dozens of special forces soldiers, supported by Black Hawk helicopters and surveillance drones, entered sovereign airspace, violated the borders of an independent country, and arrested its elected head of state. The Venezuelan government naturally denounced this as an “act of war” and an “unacceptable violation of its sovereignty,” but international reactions have been surprisingly timid. Few countries dared to strongly condemn this blatant act of aggression, illustrating once again the international community’s paralysis in the face of unilateral U.S. actions. Operation “Absolute Resolve” sets an extremely dangerous precedent: if the United States can kidnap a sitting president with impunity, what head of state can still consider himself safe?

The Trump Administration’s Questionable Justifications

The White House has put forward several justifications for this operation, but none of them really stand up to scrutiny. The main reason cited is the need to bring Nicolás Maduro to justice for “drug trafficking” and “narco-terrorism.” However, this explanation seems particularly hypocritical given that the United States maintains cordial relations with many other leaders involved in similar activities. Furthermore, the normal legal procedure for such charges would be an extradition request or proceedings before international courts—certainly not a unilateral military operation.

The real reasons behind this operation seem much clearer: control over Venezuela’s immense oil reserves—the largest in the world—and Trump’s desire to make a political splash at a time when his popularity is waning. Since the operation’s success, Trump has made no secret of his expansionist ambitions, openly declaring that the United States would “run” Venezuela and that American companies would control its oil. The White House has also not ruled out sending additional troops to Venezuelan soil to “secure oil facilities” and “maintain order.” These statements confirm what many critics had suspected from the start: the operation against Maduro was merely a prelude to a broader military occupation and U.S. control of Venezuela’s resources.

Maduro’s kidnapping was the moment I truly realized that nothing was impossible anymore. The United States kidnaps a sitting president like in a bad action movie, and the world just stands by and watches? It’s surreal. And the justifications! Drug trafficking! As if the United States really cared about drug trafficking when it doesn’t suit their interests. It’s so cynical, so obvious. They want the oil, period. They want to turn Venezuela into an oil colony, and they’ve found the perfect pretext. What chills me the most is seeing how many people have fallen for it, how many “progressives” thought it was great to get rid of Maduro.

Section 6: Tim Kaine, the Conscience of the Democratic Party

A Democrat Who Regains His Courage

Tim Kaine, a Democratic senator from Virginia and one of the resolution’s principal authors, played a crucial role in this unexpected mobilization against Trump’s war powers. Known for his moderation and pragmatism, Kaine nonetheless has a long history of defending Congress’s prerogatives in foreign policy. His role in this resolution may represent one of the most significant moments of his political career—a moment when he chose to prioritize constitutional principles over partisan political calculations. In his public statements, Kaine was particularly incisive, denouncing “the lack of transparency with which the Trump administration kept Congress in the dark prior to Saturday’s operation.”

“Instead of addressing Americans’ concerns about the cost of living, President Trump has started a war with Venezuela,” he said on Wednesday before the vote. This statement perfectly sums up the Democratic argument: Trump is diverting attention from real domestic problems by launching dangerous military adventures abroad. Kaine also emphasized the Trump administration’s lack of transparency, noting that it carried out Operation Maduro without even informing congressional leaders—a flagrant violation of the traditions of consultation between the executive and legislative branches on foreign policy and defense matters. For Kaine, this resolution is not just a matter of constitutional authority; it is also a matter of democratic accountability in the face of an increasingly impulsive and unpredictable president.

Kaine’s Constitutional Legacy

Tim Kaine is no stranger to this fight to restore Congress’s prerogatives. For several years, he has been working on bills aimed at limiting presidential war powers, often in vain in the face of Republican opposition and sometimes even Democratic apathy. This time, however, the context is different: Operation Maduro and Trump’s expansionist ambitions have created a sense of urgency that has even convinced some Republicans traditionally hostile to such limitations. Kaine’s position is all the more credible because it has been consistent: he opposed the expansion of war powers under both the Obama and Trump administrations, proving that his commitment to the Constitution is not merely partisan.

However, some Democratic critics fault Kaine for waiting so long to take such a firm stance. For years, they have accused him of being too timid, too accommodating in the face of the executive branch’s excesses. His sudden resolve in this Venezuela matter therefore appears to be a welcome change, but also one that comes a little too late. It remains to be seen whether this newfound firmness will endure or whether it is merely a reaction to a particularly extreme situation. In any case, Kaine’s role in this resolution will stand as a rare moment when a U.S. lawmaker succeeded in rallying a bipartisan coalition to defend fundamental constitutional principles in the face of an imperial president.

Tim Kaine—that Democrat who is so kind, so polite, and always ready to compromise… who would have thought he’d have the courage to defy Trump? And above all, who would have thought he’d manage to convince even a single Republican to follow him? It’s almost a political miracle. For once, the Democrats aren’t just cleaning up the mess left by the Republicans—they’re waging a real constitutional battle. Of course, one could criticize Kaine for waiting until Trump threatened Greenland before reacting. But let’s be honest: in the current climate, even that is a huge deal. At least someone in this country is still trying to remind us that the Constitution exists.

Section 7: Rand Paul, the Libertarian Against the Empire

An Unconventional but Consistent Republican

Rand Paul, a Republican senator from Kentucky, is a fascinating and often contradictory figure in American politics. A staunch libertarian, he spends most of his time blocking judicial nominations and opposing government spending measures for ideological reasons that often seem trivial. However, on the issue of presidential war powers, Paul has consistently maintained a remarkably consistent and courageous stance. Unlike many of his Republican colleagues, who only discovered their opposition to military interventions after Trump took office, Paul has opposed the expansion of war powers under Bush, Obama, and now Trump.

His involvement in this resolution, S.J.Res.90, therefore comes as no surprise to those who have followed his career, but the decision to do so alongside Tim Kaine and in opposition to a president from his own party remains significant. “The constitutional power to declare war rests firmly with Congress,” he said Wednesday on the floor of the Senate, a statement he later reiterated on Twitter. For Paul, this is not a political issue but a constitutional one: he sincerely believes that presidents, regardless of their party, have for decades usurped a power that rightfully belongs to Congress. His position is all the more credible because it does not change depending on whether the president is a Democrat or a Republican—a rarity in the contemporary American political landscape.

The Limits of Libertarian Ideology

However, Rand Paul’s stance also raises questions about the limits of libertarian ideology in U.S. foreign policy. While Paul deserves praise for his consistency on issues of war powers, his vision of an America disengaged from the world also poses problems. Libertarian isolationism, while appealing in its principle of limiting presidential power, could create dangerous power vacuums in a world where other expansionist powers would not hesitate to fill the gaps left by the United States. The question is not so much whether the United States should intervene militarily everywhere, but rather how to maintain a balance between the necessities of global security and constitutional principles.

Furthermore, Paul’s engagement remains limited to certain specific issues. He has not, for example, used his influence to oppose other autocratic excesses by Trump that do not directly involve war powers. His activism, while genuine, remains selective. This does not diminish the value of his stance on Venezuela, but it serves as a reminder that even the most consistent politicians have their limits and blind spots. In any case, in this specific matter, Rand Paul played a crucial role by providing the necessary Republican backing so that this resolution could be taken seriously and not simply dismissed as a purely partisan initiative.

Rand Paul is an enigma who fascinates me. On the one hand, he has this incredible courage that leads him to defy his own president on matters of principle. On the other, he spends 90% of his time blocking useful measures for absurd ideological reasons. It’s as if he had a superpower that only activates when it comes to limiting the powers of war. And yet, at this very moment, that superpower is exactly what the country needs. Without him, this resolution would have remained a pipe dream of powerless Democrats. With him, it has at least a chance—however slim—of becoming a reality. It’s paradoxical, it’s frustrating, but that’s just how it is.

Section 8: Implications for American Democracy

A Crucial Test for Constitutional Balances

This resolution on Venezuela represents much more than a mere political disagreement over a specific military intervention: it constitutes a crucial test for the democratic and constitutional foundations of the United States. Since the end of World War II, U.S. presidents have gradually expanded their powers in foreign policy and defense, often with the tacit or explicit approval of Congress. The wars in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan were all waged under vague legal authorizations or without a formal declaration of war, setting a dangerous precedent for the balance of powers envisioned by the Founding Fathers.

The Trump administration has dramatically accelerated this drift. Not only has it conducted military operations without proper consultation with Congress—as in the case of Venezuela—but it has also articulated an explicitly imperial and expansionist vision that goes far beyond historical precedents. The threats against Greenland, the statements that the United States will “lead” Venezuela, the idea that American companies will control Venezuela’s oil resources… all of this represents a fundamental break with American constitutional tradition and a direct threat to fundamental democratic principles.

Institutional Resilience or Decay

The crucial question now is whether U.S. institutions are still capable of resisting this drift toward autocracy. Resolution S.J.Res.90, even if it ultimately fails, is an encouraging sign that certain institutional safeguards are still functioning. The fact that five Republican senators dared to defy Trump, that Democrats found the courage to lead this battle, that the press was able to cover these events freely… all of this shows that American democracy is not yet dead, even if it is seriously ill.

However, signs of institutional decay are also everywhere. Forty-five Republican senators chose to blindly follow a president who is clearly a danger to democracy. The White House continues to ignore constitutional constraints without facing any real consequences. American public opinion remains largely indifferent to fundamental constitutional issues. Political polarization makes it nearly impossible to form bipartisan majorities to defend fundamental democratic principles. In this context, the resolution on Venezuela appears both as a sign of hope and as a symptom of the severity of the American democratic crisis.

Sometimes I wonder if we aren’t witnessing the end of a democratic experiment. For decades, the United States was that beacon of democracy that the whole world admired. And today? Today we have a president who behaves like a Roman emperor, a Congress that follows him with a large majority, and a population that seems to not give a damn. There are no more principles, no more values, no more limits. All that remains is raw power, tribal instinct, and hatred of the other. It’s frightening—not because Trump is particularly clever, but because he reveals something rotten at the heart of American society.

Section 9: International Reactions

A deafening silence from the international community

One of the most striking features of this crisis surrounding Venezuela has been the near-total absence of firm reactions from the international community. When U.S. special forces kidnapped the Venezuelan president—thereby violating the sovereignty of an independent country and setting an extremely dangerous precedent—most countries chose to remain silent or issue statements so vague as to be meaningless. This international timidity is revealing of the dramatic imbalance of power on the global stage.

The few countries that dared to criticize the U.S. operation were mainly nations traditionally opposed to American influence, such as Russia, China, Iran, and Cuba. Their condemnations, though substantively justified, were easily dismissed by Western media as mere anti-American propaganda. The United States’ traditional allies, in both Europe and Latin America, preferred to remain silent or limit themselves to vague calls “for restraint” and “respect for international law.” This reluctance to challenge Washington, even when it commits acts that are clearly illegal by international standards, shows just how much the current world order depends on American goodwill.

The Strategic Calculations Behind the Silence

This international silence is no accident: it reflects complex strategic calculations on the part of many countries. For the United States’ European allies, openly criticizing the Trump administration could jeopardize cooperation on other crucial issues such as European defense against Russia, international trade, or the fight against terrorism. Even European countries that are horrified by Trump’s actions prefer to keep their criticism to themselves, fearing that open tensions with Washington would ultimately only serve the interests of rival powers such as Russia or China.

For Latin American countries, the calculations are even more complex. Many are economically dependent on the United States and cannot afford a direct confrontation with Washington. Furthermore, many Latin American governments are themselves critical of the Maduro administration and therefore have no desire to appear as its defenders, even if they disapprove of U.S. methods. This pragmatic calculation, while understandable, unfortunately contributes to setting a dangerous precedent in which U.S. impunity becomes the norm. The message sent to the rest of the world is clear: the United States can violate national sovereignty without fear of serious consequences.

The world’s silence in the face of Maduro’s kidnapping is perhaps what shocked me the most. Not that I’m surprised, of course. The powerful have always protected the powerful. But there was something particularly cynical about this situation. All these countries that present themselves as defenders of international law, all these leaders who talk about sovereignty and independence… and when the United States violates all these principles in the most blatant way possible, there is total silence. Hypocrites. Cowards. International law exists only to punish the weak, not to constrain the strong. It’s always been that way, but at least they used to pretend otherwise.

Section 10: The Future of the Resolution

Significant Obstacles to Adoption

Despite the success of the procedural motion on January 8, the future of S.J.Res.90 remains extremely uncertain. Several major obstacles stand in the way of its final adoption. First, the text itself must still be put to a vote in the Senate next week, and even if the five Republican senators maintain their position, there is no guarantee that the procedural vote will result in a favorable final vote. Pressure on these senators will intensify in the coming days, and some may cave in the face of Trump’s threats or promises of political rewards.

Second, even if passed by the Senate, the resolution will head to the House of Representatives, where the situation is much more unfavorable. Republicans there hold a more comfortable majority that is more loyal to Trump, and it is unlikely that enough of them will dare to defy the president. House Democrats also lack charismatic leaders capable of leading a bipartisan battle, such as Tim Kaine in the Senate. Passage in the House therefore seems unlikely without a significant shift in the political landscape or the emergence of a shocking event that would alter political calculations.

The Presidential Veto: The Final Hurdle

Finally, and this is the most significant obstacle, even if the resolution were to miraculously pass both chambers of Congress, Donald Trump could—and certainly would—veto it. To override this veto, a two-thirds majority in each chamber would be required, which is practically impossible in the current political climate. Even the Republican senators who supported the resolution would likely not vote to override the presidential veto, making the effort largely symbolic.

However, this symbolic significance should not be underestimated. Even if the resolution ultimately fails, it will have served as a reminder that certain fundamental constitutional principles still matter to some elected officials. It will also have helped set an important political precedent: that of open Republican opposition to Trump’s imperial policies. And it may have planted a seed that could sprout in the future if the Trump administration’s authoritarian tendencies intensify. Sometimes, battles lost today lay the groundwork for tomorrow’s victories.

I know this resolution has very little chance of succeeding. Trump will veto it, the Republicans will abandon it, and it will all end up in the dustbin of political history. And yet, I can’t help but see a glimmer of hope in it. Five Republican senators said no. Five. It’s ridiculous, it’s pathetic, but it’s also all we have left. In an ocean of cowardice and complicity, five islands of courage. It probably won’t change anything, but at least we’ll know that when it’s all over, when American democracy is nothing more than a memory, five people will have tried.

Section 11: Historical Precedent

Resolutions on War Powers in American History

Resolution S.J.Res.90 is part of a long but often unsuccessful history of congressional attempts to regain control over presidential war powers. The most famous of these attempts remains, of course, the War Powers Resolution of 1973, adopted during the Vietnam War to compel the president to consult Congress before committing armed forces to hostilities. However, since its passage, this law has been systematically ignored or circumvented by presidents from both parties, who have viewed its restrictions as unconstitutional or simply inapplicable in the modern context of asymmetric conflicts.

More recently, Congress has passed similar resolutions to limit U.S. military involvement in Yemen, Libya, and Syria. In most cases, these resolutions have either failed in Congress, been vetoed by the president, or simply been ignored by the executive branch. The case of Venezuela, however, is different in terms of its context and the bipartisan coalition it has managed to bring together. Unlike previous instances where the opposition was purely Democratic, here prominent Republicans have joined the call, creating a new political dynamic.

Lessons from History for the Future

The history of these attempts to limit presidential war powers offers important lessons for understanding current issues. First, it shows that Congress has always struggled to maintain its constitutional role in foreign policy in the face of an executive branch determined to expand its prerogatives. Second, it demonstrates that bipartisan coalitions on these issues are rare but possible, generally when circumstances are extreme enough to create a broad consensus. Third, it suggests that even failures can have significant symbolic value by keeping fundamental constitutional debates alive.

However, this history also offers a warning: trends toward the concentration of presidential power in foreign policy have only accelerated over the decades, despite occasional resistance from Congress. Each administration has used the precedents set by its predecessors to justify a further expansion of its powers. The Trump administration may represent the culmination of this trend, but it did not emerge in a vacuum. It builds on fifty years of a gradual shift in the constitutional balance of power.

When I look at the history of these battles over war powers, I see the same story repeating itself over and over. Congress protests, the president ignores it, time passes, and nothing really changes. Except this time, it’s different. Trump is not like other presidents. He has no respect for institutions, no understanding of constitutional checks and balances, and no sense of responsibility. He sees power as a personal tool to satisfy his desires and exact his revenge. Historical precedents no longer really apply. We are in uncharted territory, and the old rules no longer work.

Section 12: The Role of the Media and Public Opinion

Modest but Significant Media Coverage

The way the American media covered this resolution on Venezuela offers a fascinating glimpse into the current state of political journalism in the United States. Contrary to what one might fear, most mainstream media outlets covered the event well, recognizing its constitutional and political significance. The New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, and MSNBC all devoted articles and television segments to this resolution, explaining the issues at stake and interviewing the key players. This coverage, while often technical and at times dry, at least ensured that the information reached the public.

However, this coverage also revealed some troubling limitations. Many media outlets treated this story primarily as an internal political saga within the Republican Party, focusing on the human aspects and political calculations rather than on the fundamental constitutional issues. Few took a clear stance in favor of the resolution, preferring to maintain an appearance of objectivity that at times borders on neutrality between democracy and authoritarianism. Furthermore, coverage has been largely confined to media outlets considered “liberal,” with conservative media preferring to ignore or downplay the significance of this resolution.

The Alarming Indifference of Public Opinion

Even more troubling is the reaction of the American public. According to the first available polls, a majority of Americans either are completely unaware of this resolution or are indifferent to it. Those who do have an opinion tend to divide along the usual partisan lines, with Democrats largely supporting the limitation of Trump’s powers and Republicans largely opposing it. This polarization makes it virtually impossible to build a broad public consensus in favor of fundamental constitutional principles.

This public indifference can be explained by several factors. First, issues of foreign policy and constitutional authority have always interested only a minority of American citizens, who are more concerned with economic and social issues that directly affect their daily lives. Second, the extreme polarization of the media landscape means that many Americans receive highly incomplete and biased information on these issues. Finally, the constant barrage of political news creates a kind of fatigue that makes it difficult to mobilize around complex issues.

That’s perhaps what despairs me the most: the general indifference. Not just the indifference of Trump voters—that’s to be expected. But the indifference of everyone. People who call themselves progressives, who call themselves defenders of democracy, and who watch Trump turn their country into his personal empire without lifting a finger. They’re too busy posting their Instagram Stories, complaining about the cost of living, and binge-watching Netflix shows. Democracy is dying, and people couldn’t care less. Maybe, in the end, that’s the real answer: people don’t really want democracy after all. It’s too complicated; it takes too much effort.

Conclusion: A Glimmer of Hope in the Darkness

The Fragile Hope of Institutional Resistance

As we conclude this analysis of the U.S. Senate resolution on war powers in Venezuela, a complex and contradictory picture emerges. On the one hand, there are profound reasons for pessimism. The resolution is unlikely to pass, Trump continues to concentrate imperial power in his own hands, democratic institutions are weakening by the day, and public opinion remains largely indifferent to the country’s drift toward authoritarianism. Historical trends toward the concentration of presidential power are accelerating rather than slowing down, and each new crisis seems to reinforce authoritarian instincts rather than democratic ones.

On the other hand, however, there is this unexpected glimmer of hope: five Republican senators who said no. Five men and women who, in the face of immense pressure from their party and direct threats from the president, chose to put the Constitution above their careers. Five voices that, though few in number, may represent the beginning of a broader institutional resistance. This resistance will likely not come from the Republican Party as a whole, nor even from a majority of Democrats. But it could come from these few courageous individuals who remind us that even in the darkest hours, democratic principles are worth defending.

The Choice Facing American Society

The resolution on Venezuela, whatever its final outcome, forces American society to make a fundamental choice: that between an imperial vision and a democratic vision of its role in the world. Do we want a country where a president can unilaterally declare war, kidnap foreign heads of state, and threaten to invade other nations without any democratic oversight? Or do we want a country where fundamental constitutional principles are respected, where power is balanced, and where foreign policy reflects the democratic values we claim to uphold?

This choice is not merely political; it is moral and existential. It will determine not only the future of American democracy but also that of the world order in which we live. An imperial and authoritarian America poses a threat to peace and freedom throughout the world. A democratic America that respects international law—though imperfect—at least offers hope for a more just and stable world order.

I’m sitting in front of my screen, rereading these words, and I wonder if all of this isn’t completely absurd. Does it make sense to write articles about democracy when it’s dying right before our eyes? Does it make sense to analyze constitutional subtleties when the Constitution is being torn apart? And yet… and yet I can’t stop. Because five people said no. Five. In a country of 330 million people, five people found the courage to defy a tyrant. It’s ridiculous, it’s pathetic, it’s hopelessly inadequate. But it’s also all we have left. Five glimmers of light in the deepest darkness. So yes, I’m going to keep writing. I’m going to keep analyzing. I’m going to keep hoping. Because even if the battle is lost, even if American democracy is doomed, we must at least bear witness. We must at least say that we tried.

Share this post

Copied!