Trump Blasts GOP Defectors: Venezuela War Vote Sparks Party Rebellion

Paul Riverbank, 1/9/2026In a dramatic Senate rebuke, five GOP senators joined Democrats to demand congressional approval before expanding military action in Venezuela, spotlighting a defining constitutional clash over who decides when America goes to war. The standoff tests party unity and presidential authority.

It started with President Trump, who didn't just disagree with five members of his own party—he put them squarely in his sights. The issue: whether he needed Congress’s permission before ordering further military action in Venezuela, after U.S. forces captured Nicolás Maduro. Those five Republican senators—Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Rand Paul, Josh Hawley, and Todd Young—voted with Democrats for a resolution that says, essentially, future troop deployments would need lawmakers’ approval.

That’s not the usual choreography on Capitol Hill. The Senate, for years, has mostly stuck with its party’s president on anything touching national security. Breaking away, and so publicly, is the political equivalent of stepping over the rope in a tug-of-war.

If Trump was in any mood to forgive, it didn’t show. On Truth Social, he posted a statement that named—singled out, really—each of the GOP defectors, blasting them for trying to “take away our Powers to fight and defend the United States of America.” Followed by: “should never be elected to office again.” The language was pointed, almost personal in tone. Later, he accused the resolution of undermining presidential authority, calling it both “stupid” and dangerous for the country’s defense.

The White House’s stance, echoed by Trump’s supporters, is that the operation in Venezuela shouldn’t trigger a constitutional crisis. Their case? It was a law-enforcement action, not a declaration of war. “Presidents have always acted in these circumstances without first turning to Congress,” a senior official reminded reporters, in a phrase that nearly anyone who's covered the West Wing could recite by heart.

But to the five Republican senators, this wasn’t just about Venezuela or Maduro—it was a test of principle. Rand Paul, rarely shy with a microphone, summed up their thinking bluntly. “The debate isn’t about who’s good or evil,” he told a small group of journalists. “There’s plenty of evil in the world. The real question is: Who decides when we go to war?” He reminded everyone that the Constitution gives Congress—not the president—the power to declare war, while the president runs things once war is underway.

Senator Collins, for her part, walked a careful line. She praised the operation’s “precision and complexity,” but drew the line at any further American involvement without explicit congressional say-so. “Any long-term deployment or major action—it’s a step that deserves broader approval,” she said, nodding at the constitutional checks and balances that people often praise but less often enforce.

If this feels familiar, it should. The tug-of-war over war powers has surfaced in Washington for generations, each time a fresh military crisis draws the branch lines in bolder ink. The executive branch argues—sometimes persuasively—that the White House needs flexibility to act quickly. Congress, on the other hand, says the stakes are too high for anything less than a full debate and a public vote.

The Senate’s war powers resolution isn’t final yet—it still faces a close vote, then the House, and most predictably, a probable veto from President Trump. But this week’s episode felt like more than just a legislative skirmish. It was an unmistakable message: even a party as disciplined as today’s Republicans has moments when loyalty gives way to a deeper constitutional principle.

Washington isn’t used to intra-party fracture on the national stage. The rare times it happens, the headlines multiply, and the uncertainty—at least among the political class—lingers in the air. Trump, if anything, signaled that we haven’t seen the last of this dispute. He warned that another Senate vote, “even more important,” was in the offing.

So, while the war powers debate has a long history, it’s caught up—in this moment—in a very modern drama about where presidential authority stops and Congressional oversight begins. For all the formalities of Senate proceedings, and the thunderclap of presidential rebuke, the underlying questions are old and unresolved. In the capital this week, you could almost sense—between the lines and the heated press gaggles—that nobody’s quite sure how, or when, this standoff will end.

If you happened to be in Washington this week, you might have noticed a palpable sense of division – not just along party lines, but within them. The spark? A single Senate vote that, given the town's history, could have been routine. Instead, it broke ranks and set off fireworks.It started with President Trump, who didn't just disagree with five members of his own party—he put them squarely in his sights. The issue: whether he needed Congress’s permission before ordering further military action in Venezuela, after U.S. forces captured Nicolás Maduro. Those five Republican senators—Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Rand Paul, Josh Hawley, and Todd Young—voted with Democrats for a resolution that says, essentially, future troop deployments would need lawmakers’ approval.That’s not the usual choreography on Capitol Hill. The Senate, for years, has mostly stuck with its party’s president on anything touching national security. Breaking away, and so publicly, is the political equivalent of stepping over the rope in a tug-of-war.If Trump was in any mood to forgive, it didn’t show. On Truth Social, he posted a statement that named—singled out, really—each of the GOP defectors, blasting them for trying to “take away our Powers to fight and defend the United States of America.” Followed by: “should never be elected to office again.” The language was pointed, almost personal in tone. Later, he accused the resolution of undermining presidential authority, calling it both “stupid” and dangerous for the country’s defense.The White House’s stance, echoed by Trump’s supporters, is that the operation in Venezuela shouldn’t trigger a constitutional crisis. Their case? It was a law-enforcement action, not a declaration of war. “Presidents have always acted in these circumstances without first turning to Congress,” a senior official reminded reporters, in a phrase that nearly anyone who's covered the West Wing could recite by heart.But to the five Republican senators, this wasn’t just about Venezuela or Maduro—it was a test of principle. Rand Paul, rarely shy with a microphone, summed up their thinking bluntly. “The debate isn’t about who’s good or evil,” he told a small group of journalists. “There’s plenty of evil in the world. The real question is: Who decides when we go to war?” He reminded everyone that the Constitution gives Congress—not the president—the power to declare war, while the president runs things once war is underway.Senator Collins, for her part, walked a careful line. She praised the operation’s “precision and complexity,” but drew the line at any further American involvement without explicit congressional say-so. “Any long-term deployment or major action—it’s a step that deserves broader approval,” she said, nodding at the constitutional checks and balances that people often praise but less often enforce.If this feels familiar, it should. The tug-of-war over war powers has surfaced in Washington for generations, each time a fresh military crisis draws the branch lines in bolder ink. The executive branch argues—sometimes persuasively—that the White House needs flexibility to act quickly. Congress, on the other hand, says the stakes are too high for anything less than a full debate and a public vote.The Senate’s war powers resolution isn’t final yet—it still faces a close vote, then the House, and most predictably, a probable veto from President Trump. But this week’s episode felt like more than just a legislative skirmish. It was an unmistakable message: even a party as disciplined as today’s Republicans has moments when loyalty gives way to a deeper constitutional principle.Washington isn’t used to intra-party fracture on the national stage. The rare times it happens, the headlines multiply, and the uncertainty—at least among the political class—lingers in the air. Trump, if anything, signaled that we haven’t seen the last of this dispute. He warned that another Senate vote, “even more important,” was in the offing.So, while the war powers debate has a long history, it’s caught up—in this moment—in a very modern drama about where presidential authority stops and Congressional oversight begins. For all the formalities of Senate proceedings, and the thunderclap of presidential rebuke, the underlying questions are old and unresolved. In the capital this week, you could almost sense—between the lines and the heated press gaggles—that nobody’s quite sure how, or when, this standoff will end.