BREAKING: The Southern California Republican delegation has just rejected two critical resolutions aimed at limiting President Donald Trump‘s military actions in Venezuela. In a vote that underscores deep divisions within Congress, 216 members opposed a measure to restrict the president from engaging in hostilities against groups he has labeled as terrorists, including drug cartels.
This urgent development comes as tensions escalate over Trump’s controversial military strategies in Latin America, particularly his aggressive stance towards Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro. The rejected resolution called for a halt to military actions unless specifically authorized by Congress, a move that critics argue is necessary to prevent unchecked presidential power.
The first resolution failed with a narrow margin of 216 to 210. Notably, Representatives Ken Calvert, Young Kim, Jay Obernolte, and Darrell Issa voted against the measure, signaling their support for Trump’s current military approach. In contrast, Representative Norma Torres condemned the actions, stating, “The president has no authority to launch military strikes without congressional approval… What we’re witnessing is lawlessness.”
The second resolution, aimed at directing the removal of U.S. Armed Forces from unauthorized hostilities against Venezuela, also met defeat with a vote of 213 to 211. Representative Thomas Massie voiced strong objections, emphasizing the need for congressional oversight before any military action. Yet, like the previous resolution, this too was dismissed, with only a handful of Republicans supporting the constitutional measure.
As Congress continues to enable Trump’s aggressive tactics, concerns arise over the implications for U.S. foreign policy and national security. Critics argue that the ongoing military operations against drug traffickers, framed as a fight against terrorism, could lead to a dangerous escalation.
The urgency of these votes reflects a growing sentiment among lawmakers that the executive branch’s war-making powers must be checked. With drug trafficking not legally defined as a capital offense, the rationale for military strikes remains contentious.
This situation is developing rapidly, and all eyes are on Congress to see whether any future measures will be taken to assert its authority over military engagements. As the debate continues, the implications for U.S.-Latin America relations and the potential for further military actions hang in the balance.
Stay tuned for more updates on this critical issue affecting both domestic policy and international relations.
