SJRES-90-119
Motion to discharge Senate Committee on Foreign Relations rejected by Yea-Nay Vote. 49 - 51. Record Vote Number: 608. (consideration: CR S7958)
Sponsored by Tim Kaine (D-VA)
What it does
This joint resolution would require the President to end any use of U.S. Armed Forces in hostilities within or against Venezuela unless Congress has formally declared war or passed an Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) for that purpose. It would not prevent the U.S. military from acting in self-defense against an armed attack or an imminent armed attack. The resolution was introduced in the Senate in October 2025 and was rejected in a motion to discharge from committee by a vote of 49–51.
Who benefits
Members of Congress who argue the legislature's war-making authority has been eroded. U.S. military service members who could be withdrawn from an unauthorized conflict. Venezuelan civilians who might be harmed by U.S. military action. Advocacy groups focused on congressional war powers and constitutional separation of powers. U.S. taxpayers if military operations are curtailed. Diplomatic and international law communities that favor formal authorization processes.
Who is hurt
The executive branch, which would lose flexibility to conduct or continue military operations against Venezuela without congressional approval. U.S. allies or partners in the region who may rely on U.S. military posture toward Venezuela. Venezuelan opposition groups or other actors who may benefit from U.S. military pressure on the Venezuelan government. Defense contractors involved in any ongoing operations. Intelligence and national security officials who argue operational secrecy and speed require executive discretion.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the Constitution's Declare War Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 11) vests war-making authority in Congress, not the President, and that any military hostilities against Venezuela conducted without a declaration of war or AUMF are unconstitutional. They contend the War Powers Resolution of 1973 was enacted precisely to prevent open-ended, unauthorized military engagements, and that this resolution enforces that framework. They further argue that requiring congressional authorization protects service members by ensuring democratic accountability before committing them to combat.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the President, as Commander-in-Chief under Art. II, §2, cl. 1, has inherent authority to conduct limited military operations to protect U.S. national security interests without a formal declaration of war, a power exercised by virtually every modern president. They contend that publicly mandating troop withdrawal through a joint resolution could compromise operational security, embolden adversaries, and undermine U.S. credibility with regional partners — and that the 49–51 Senate vote reflects bipartisan concern that the resolution ties the executive's hands in a volatile geopolitical situation.
Constitutional context
The Declare War Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 11) gives Congress the power to declare war, while the Commander-in-Chief Clause (Art. II, §2, cl. 1) gives the President authority over military operations. The boundary between these powers — specifically whether the President may conduct sustained hostilities without congressional authorization — has been contested for decades and is the central constitutional question this resolution addresses. Zivotofsky v. Kerry (2015) affirmed broad executive authority in foreign affairs, but did not resolve the war powers boundary.
Checks and balances
Congress would gain authority to compel an end to unauthorized military operations; the primary check on this resolution itself is the President's veto power, and the self-defense carve-out preserves some executive discretion in emergency situations.
Historical precedent
Congress has invoked the War Powers Resolution framework in similar joint resolutions, most notably the 2019 resolution directing the removal of U.S. forces from the Yemen conflict (S.J.Res. 7), which passed both chambers but was vetoed by President Trump.