\n<\/p>\n
After President Donald<\/span> Trump\u2019s attack on Venezuela, Democrats publicly criticized him for starting a war without approval from Congress and Republicans privately grumbled that he did not notify them in advance.<\/p>\n The monthslong massing of U.S. forces in the Caribbean was hardly a secret<\/a> \u2014 and Congress had plenty<\/a> of chances<\/a> to try to block an attack in advance.<\/p>\n \u201cEverything here is extraordinarily illegal, and Congress has a mechanism to stop it.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/figure>\n Since the Trump administration began striking alleged drug smugglers<\/a> in the Caribbean in September, there have been four failed votes on resolutions seeking to stop unauthorized attacks on either the boats strikes or Venezuelan soil. They all fell short.<\/p>\n Lawmakers are now preparing for another vote this week on a resolution in the Senate, their latest opportunity to pump the brakes.<\/p>\n \u201cWe have had the violation of international law, the U.N. charter, the violation of the territorial integrity of Venezuela, and the kidnapping of a sitting head of state, without going to Congress, without telling Congress beforehand,\u201d said Heather Brandon-Smith, the legislative director of foreign policy for the Friends Committee on National Legislation. \u201cEverything here is extraordinarily illegal, and Congress has a mechanism to stop it through voting for these war powers resolutions.\u201d<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Every member of Congress has had two opportunities to cast their vote on military action in or around Venezuela. Two resolutions each have come up for a public vote in the House and Senate.<\/p>\n The first round of debate came on October 8<\/a>, when Sens. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and Tim Kaine, D-Va., sponsored a resolution aimed at blocking more of the strikes on alleged drug smuggling boats that had begun a month before.<\/a><\/p>\n Sens. Rand Paul, R-Ky., and Lisa Murkowski, R-Ala., were the only Republicans to vote for the measure, while Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., broke with the rest of the Democratic caucus to oppose it<\/a>.<\/p>\n In the weeks that followed, the Trump administration assembled an armada<\/a> in the Caribbean. Top officials, however, insisted that they were only interested in blowing up boats, not toppling Venezuela President Nicol\u00e1s Maduro.<\/p>\n On November 6, the Senate voted on whether to block Trump from attacking Venezuela itself without congressional authorization. This time, Fetterman voted for the resolution. The measure still failed because it did not attract Republican support besides Paul and Murkowski.<\/p>\n MAGA\u2019s antiwar caucus<\/a> remained a paper tiger on December 17, when the House voted down two resolutions aimed at blocking boat strikes and war with Venezuela. The resolution aimed at blocking war failed on a mostly party-line vote<\/a>. Only three Republican lawmakers supported it, while Rep. Henry Cuellar of Texas was the sole Democrat opposed.<\/p>\n Even if those resolutions had passed both chambers, they would have faced an uphill battle to survive a veto from Trump. Still, they would have sent a powerful message to the White House, their supporters argue.<\/p>\n \u201cIf they passed, they would have been seen as a major political defeat for Trump,\u201d said Erik Sperling, the executive director of the nonprofit Just Foreign Policy. \u201cIt\u2019s such an extraordinary action for Congress to get out ahead of a war by opposing it, especially when Congress and the American public are aligned against the war. That\u2019s when it is the biggest political defeat for an administration, and the hardest to proceed with an unpopular war.\u201d<\/p>\n Republicans who voted against the resolutions may find some cover by pointing to assurances from administration officials that the U.S. was not poised for war \u2014 particularly the hawkish Secretary of State Marco Rubio.<\/p>\n \u201cIn a certain sense, they should have known, and they should have cast a clear vote against any kind of escalation,\u201d Sperling said. \u201cBut in their defense, in both cases, the administration came to Congress, including Rubio, and promised they were not going to launch illegal strikes. In that sense, people could still claim that they were misled by Rubio.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cJust because you drag along a couple DEA agents doesn\u2019t transform this massive military operation.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/figure>\n Ahead of the December 17 House vote on a pair of war powers resolutions, for example, Rubio and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth told Congress<\/a> that they did not have a legal case for launching war and were not preparing to target Venezuela.<\/p>\n Rep. Pat Ryan, D-N.Y., said that Rubio lied to lawmakers about the administration\u2019s plans.<\/p>\n \u201cIn the most recent classified briefing, which I was in, and happened right before Christmas, Marco Rubio personally, explicitly lied, to me and the Congress and to the people\u2019s representatives,\u201d Ryan told CNN. \u201cWe asked over and over, what is the larger plan \u2014 is there an effort at regime change being planned?\u201d<\/p>\n Rubio denied lying to Congress \u2014 relying on the argument that the attack on Venezuela that left dozens dead was nothing more than<\/a> a \u201claw enforcement operation.\u201d That explanation doesn\u2019t pass muster with Brian Finucane, a senior adviser at the International Crisis Group who previously served as a legal adviser to the State Department.<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s just kind of a silly argument,\u201d he said. \u201cBecause it was an invasion. The U.S. did go to war with Venezuela. Just because you drag along a couple DEA agents doesn\u2019t transform this massive military operation as a whole into a law enforcement operation.\u201d<\/p>\n <\/p>\n\n
Four Failed Votes<\/strong><\/h2>\n
\u201cRubio Explicitly Lied\u201d<\/strong><\/h2>\n
\n