Cracks in the GOP: Republicans Defy Trump on War Powers and Obamacare

Paul Riverbank, 1/13/2026Republicans break ranks with Trump on war, healthcare, and spending—election pressures strain party unity.

One recent day, the Senate veered close to debating military intervention in the Caribbean, turning what might have been routine into a high-stakes count. The roll call was razor-thin: every Democrat signaled approval, but it was two Republicans—Murkowski and Rand Paul—who nudged it almost into history. Just a couple more and the headline would have written itself. The second attempt brought a minor shift as Todd Young, Susan Collins, and, notably, Josh Hawley moved over as well. Hawley didn’t mince words: “We don’t know what’s coming in Venezuela. Should it come to troops, Congress ought to be responsible for that call.”

Rand Paul’s perspective took on extra gravity, distinguishing the last go-around from this one. “Before, we were debating what-ifs,” he said. “Now, it’s about a real operation, a real invasion—not theoretical anymore.”

That position didn’t sit well with every Republican, certainly not with John Husted. He stayed loyal to the White House’s position on Venezuela—but he acknowledged the jitters over the administration’s noisy hints at Greenland and broader American intervention abroad. “Everyone’s excited by our headline successes in Venezuela so far, but many are hesitant when it comes to what happens if things go sideways in Greenland,” Husted explained, casting a shadow of doubt into what’s otherwise been a confident chorus.

President Trump, rarely one to understate, wasted no time blasting the five Republicans who crossed the aisle. “They should never be elected to office again,” he declared to a sea of microphones. Lindsey Graham, loyal as ever, said their stance would hand Venezuela’s regime “a gift,” warning, “They’ll be blamed for ruining our best chance to liberate those people.”

Meanwhile, Vice President JD Vance, famous for once questioning presidential war powers in far-flung places like Niger and Syria, now pressed in the other direction. “Ask any president of either party,” Vance argued. “They all claim the War Powers Act goes against the Constitution itself.”

Shifts weren’t limited to the upper chamber. In the House, the mood was quietly mutinous. A measure to extend Obamacare subsidies garnered support from 17 Republicans, a rare showing of bipartisan unity that would have made headlines a decade ago. Representative Derrick Van Orden saw it as practical, not political: “This is about the people back home.” Mike Carey, a Republican from Ohio, echoed him plainly: “Forty-five thousand folks in my district have these plans. I’m not about to take that away just because Washington gridlocks.”

Yet even this pragmatism crossed swords with the White House. Trump, who recently called for “flexibility” from Republicans when discussing abortion and healthcare, threatened a veto if such a bill landed on his desk. In fairness, vetoes aren’t exactly uncommon in contemporary Washington. What’s rare, however, is Congress mustering an override, though we’ve seen a determined handful of Republicans side with Democrats when it came to waterlines in Colorado and tribal land rights in Florida. Those instances serve as little reminders: Party discipline isn’t the impenetrable fortress it’s made out to be.

Elsewhere in the capital, tensions flared over the Federal Reserve’s ballooning renovation costs. With the price tag swelling from $1.9 to $2.5 billion, the Justice Department took aim. Trump’s camp denounced the project as “the most expensive in D.C. history.” Fed Chair Jerome Powell bristled at the scrutiny: “No Federal Reserve chair is above the law, but let’s not ignore the bigger picture—is the administration using this to turn the screws?”

The fallout hit the Senate Banking Committee, too. Senator Thom Tillis, a Republican voice there, now vows to block any new Fed nominee until the dust settles on this legal standoff. When margins are this thin, even a single lost vote throws a wrench in the system’s gears.

All of this is, of course, set against the relentless hum of election season. Democrats smell opportunity, with Chris Matthews, ever the colorful analyst, spinning out his own prediction: “Democrats might pick up 30 House seats. And if you look at Cooper and Brown’s numbers, those state races look promising—potentially transformational.”

But Washington is nothing if not a lesson in déjà vu. The ghosts of Reagan’s sixth year, battered by Iran-Contra, or Nixon, mired in Watergate, remind us that even the most united parties eventually fray. The closer lawmakers get to voters back home, the less predictable their loyalties become.

Nobody expects a tidal wave of GOP defectors in Trump’s Washington. Yet, patches of independence are surfacing—driven as much by political self-preservation as by matters of principle. As the midterm clock ticks down and the votes grow weightier, Congress faces a test of its very character: Will it bend to party, or will old habits of independence return in force?

Sometimes, Capitol Hill seems like a rowdy dinner table more than a disciplined political battlefield. That’s how it's felt lately as familiar party lines have blurred—some Republicans drifting from President Trump on significant, and decidedly unpredictable, issues.One recent day, the Senate veered close to debating military intervention in the Caribbean, turning what might have been routine into a high-stakes count. The roll call was razor-thin: every Democrat signaled approval, but it was two Republicans—Murkowski and Rand Paul—who nudged it almost into history. Just a couple more and the headline would have written itself. The second attempt brought a minor shift as Todd Young, Susan Collins, and, notably, Josh Hawley moved over as well. Hawley didn’t mince words: “We don’t know what’s coming in Venezuela. Should it come to troops, Congress ought to be responsible for that call.”Rand Paul’s perspective took on extra gravity, distinguishing the last go-around from this one. “Before, we were debating what-ifs,” he said. “Now, it’s about a real operation, a real invasion—not theoretical anymore.”That position didn’t sit well with every Republican, certainly not with John Husted. He stayed loyal to the White House’s position on Venezuela—but he acknowledged the jitters over the administration’s noisy hints at Greenland and broader American intervention abroad. “Everyone’s excited by our headline successes in Venezuela so far, but many are hesitant when it comes to what happens if things go sideways in Greenland,” Husted explained, casting a shadow of doubt into what’s otherwise been a confident chorus.President Trump, rarely one to understate, wasted no time blasting the five Republicans who crossed the aisle. “They should never be elected to office again,” he declared to a sea of microphones. Lindsey Graham, loyal as ever, said their stance would hand Venezuela’s regime “a gift,” warning, “They’ll be blamed for ruining our best chance to liberate those people.”Meanwhile, Vice President JD Vance, famous for once questioning presidential war powers in far-flung places like Niger and Syria, now pressed in the other direction. “Ask any president of either party,” Vance argued. “They all claim the War Powers Act goes against the Constitution itself.”Shifts weren’t limited to the upper chamber. In the House, the mood was quietly mutinous. A measure to extend Obamacare subsidies garnered support from 17 Republicans, a rare showing of bipartisan unity that would have made headlines a decade ago. Representative Derrick Van Orden saw it as practical, not political: “This is about the people back home.” Mike Carey, a Republican from Ohio, echoed him plainly: “Forty-five thousand folks in my district have these plans. I’m not about to take that away just because Washington gridlocks.”Yet even this pragmatism crossed swords with the White House. Trump, who recently called for “flexibility” from Republicans when discussing abortion and healthcare, threatened a veto if such a bill landed on his desk. In fairness, vetoes aren’t exactly uncommon in contemporary Washington. What’s rare, however, is Congress mustering an override, though we’ve seen a determined handful of Republicans side with Democrats when it came to waterlines in Colorado and tribal land rights in Florida. Those instances serve as little reminders: Party discipline isn’t the impenetrable fortress it’s made out to be.Elsewhere in the capital, tensions flared over the Federal Reserve’s ballooning renovation costs. With the price tag swelling from $1.9 to $2.5 billion, the Justice Department took aim. Trump’s camp denounced the project as “the most expensive in D.C. history.” Fed Chair Jerome Powell bristled at the scrutiny: “No Federal Reserve chair is above the law, but let’s not ignore the bigger picture—is the administration using this to turn the screws?”The fallout hit the Senate Banking Committee, too. Senator Thom Tillis, a Republican voice there, now vows to block any new Fed nominee until the dust settles on this legal standoff. When margins are this thin, even a single lost vote throws a wrench in the system’s gears.All of this is, of course, set against the relentless hum of election season. Democrats smell opportunity, with Chris Matthews, ever the colorful analyst, spinning out his own prediction: “Democrats might pick up 30 House seats. And if you look at Cooper and Brown’s numbers, those state races look promising—potentially transformational.”But Washington is nothing if not a lesson in déjà vu. The ghosts of Reagan’s sixth year, battered by Iran-Contra, or Nixon, mired in Watergate, remind us that even the most united parties eventually fray. The closer lawmakers get to voters back home, the less predictable their loyalties become.Nobody expects a tidal wave of GOP defectors in Trump’s Washington. Yet, patches of independence are surfacing—driven as much by political self-preservation as by matters of principle. As the midterm clock ticks down and the votes grow weightier, Congress faces a test of its very character: Will it bend to party, or will old habits of independence return in force?