As President Donald Trump escalates military actions in Venezuela, there are cracks forming in the congressional GOP.
While most Republicans remain supportive of Trump’s decision to bomb Venezuela and capture the country’s president, a small group of Republican critics is expressing rare discomfort — dissent that could carry real legislative consequences later this week if enough Republicans join Democrats in formally rebuking the administration and restraining Trump’s war powers.
At the center of their concerns is Trump’s decision to launch the operation without seeking congressional authorization — or even notify lawmakers beforehand. The mission included airstrikes and the deployment of U.S. troops on the ground in Venezuela to arrest President Nicolás Maduro. Since then, Trump has further escalated tensions, including by seizing more Venezuelan oil tankers in recent days.
These Republicans argue the unilateral action infringed on Congress’ constitutional authority to declare war, and several took issue with lawmakers being blindsided by the operation.
“Congress should have been at least prepared for what was going to happen. We had no idea,” Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., said Tuesday. “I mean, no one told us anything.”
He said he was surprised that the Trump administration brought the Department of Justice into their justification — bringing charges against Maduro — and he worried about “protecting Article I authorities.”
Bacon said he would likely vote for a war powers resolution to limit the president’s actions if one came before the House, “because I think the president needs to come and ask for our support.”
Other Republicans disapproved of the president’s announcement that the U.S. will run Venezuela in the interim. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has since sought to couch those comments, saying the U.S. would have a military quarantine on Venezuela’s oil exports as a leverage point for new leadership. But his comments have done little to quell concerns that the U.S. is taking on a major role in a sovereign nation.
As Bacon said, “No, we don’t want to run Venezuela.”
A handful of Republicans are also taking issue with the charges in the superseding indictment against Maduro, arguing that the president of a foreign country should not be subject to American laws.
Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky has qualms with all three points, and he said the administration’s actions are unconstitutional.
“It’s a crazy notion to say we’re going to call something that looks like war not war and call it a law enforcement operation simply because we want to redefine it that way so we don’t have to ask Congress for permission,” Paul said Tuesday. “I think it’s a clear violation of the Constitution.”
Asked about the president saying that the U.S. will run Venezuela following the arrest of Maduro, Paul said that posture would be “a missed opportunity.”
“Right now, there’s a lot of people in Venezuela that are glad that Maduro is gone, they’re hoping for better, they’re hoping for a freer country, they’re hoping for free elections again,” Paul said. “They have good will towards America right now. But if you tell those people that Maduro is no longer gonna be in charge of your oil, but America is, I think that sends the wrong message and there’s a potential that the goodwill in America, or in Venezuela, towards America will evaporate.”
Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., a frequent critic of the Trump administration who also has libertarian tendencies, blasted the administration for pursuing regime change in Caracas, failing to notify Congress ahead of time and for focusing on Venezuelan oil when the mission was purportedly an anti-narco terrorism operation.
Massie said the U.S. is at war with Venezuela — a notion that top Republicans have denied.
“They kidnapped the president of another country, they claim to have taken over,” Massie said, noting that Trump has said repeatedly that the U.S. is taking over is seizing the country’s oil.
“This is a war,” Massie said. “This is the definition of war. These are acts of war.”
Asked directly about claims that the U.S. would run Venezuela, Massie said he didn’t think the administration even knows “what that means.”
But the criticism isn’t just coming from the most libertarian-minded Republicans. More moderate GOP lawmakers are also expressing concerns.
Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, a Republican who represents a purple district in Pennsylvania, said that while Maduro is “an illegitimate narco-terror dictator” whose toppling and prosecution “are long overdue,” he called out the U.S. running Venezuela and the failure to notify Congress before the mission began.
“The only country that the United States of America should be ‘running’ is the United States of America,” Fitzpatrick wrote in a statement.
“We must all place paramount importance on lawful process and constitutional responsibility,” he said.
Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine also took issue with the Trump administration failing to notify lawmakers. “Congress should have been informed about the operation earlier and needs to be involved as this situation evolves,” she said.
For now, the Republican rebukes are nothing more than words, largely drowned out by comments from lawmakers and leaders who are by and large backing up the president.
On Wednesday, Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., sought to downplay the U.S. military’s actions. “We haven’t declared war on Venezuela,” he said, insisting that the U.S.’ involvement in Caracas is “not a regime change; it’s a change of the actions of the regime.”
“They checked all the boxes of everything they were supposed to do,” Johnson claimed.
Rank-and-file Republicans are also falling in line. Asked Wednesday about Trump’s announcement that he’ll “run” Venezuela, Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C., said his view is that Trump means “he’s gonna influence.”
“He doesn’t mean run it,” Wilson said, adding that he was “confident” the U.S. has no intention of running Venezuela.
“I don’t have concerns over the constitutionality or the legality of a combined law enforcement, intelligence and military operation,” Rep. Marianette Miller-Meeks, R-Iowa, told MS NOW after a Capitol Hill briefing on Wednesday. “It was brilliantly conducted, and as far as long term, I think, you know, putting a legitimate administration in power, a legitimate president, will be to the benefit of Venezuela and the United States, as well as the global community.”
And Rep. Dan Crenshaw, R-Texas, said Trump’s remarks meant the U.S. “is working with the current president.”
But whether every Republican is convinced of that remains to be seen.
One House lawmaker who attended Wednesday’s briefing said a handful of Republicans asked administration officials questions that showcased their unease with various parts of the Venezuela mission.
“There were bipartisan expressions of concern through the questions,” the lawmaker said. “All the Republicans that stood up were not cheerleaders.”
This member continued that some GOP lawmakers asked questions about “where the money’s gonna go, where’s the statutory authority, the lack of confidence in the regime.”
“This was all from Republicans,” this lawmaker said.
The real test of where Republicans stand will be later this week, when the Senate is expected to vote on a war powers resolution that would “direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities within or against Venezuela that have not been authorized by Congress.”
A similar measure failed to clear the Senate in November in a 49-51 vote, falling short of the majority threshold. Republican Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Rand Paul of Kentucky joined Democrats in support of the legislation.
But this time around, following the weekend mission, a handful of Republicans who previously opposed the war powers resolution are not foreclosing the possibility that they could support the resolution, which could restrict the administration’s actions.
On Tuesday, Collins said she was “still reviewing the language,” and Republican Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina also said he was “looking into it.”
“I haven’t taken a position,” Tillis said.
If all Democrats vote yes, and Murkowski and Paul again support the measure, just two additional Republican votes would be needed for passage. While the resolution would face an uncertain path in the House — and a near-certain presidential veto — its passage would send a clear message that Trump does not have carte blanche to seize control of Venezuela.
Even without binding force, the signal would matter: Republicans would be placing limits on the president’s authority as Trump openly floats further actions — from seizing Greenland to threatening action in Colombia and Mexico, and escalating tensions with Russia, China and Iran by insisting that Venezuela sever economic ties with those countries.
In that context, GOP lawmakers may soon have to decide whether they are willing to keep sitting on the sidelines — or finally push back.
Jack Fitzpatrick and Syedah Asghar contributed to this report.
Mychael Schnell is a reporter for MS NOW.