House Republicans narrowly avoided a vote that could have blocked President Donald Trump from deploying US troops to Venezuela, as a measure aimed at restricting his war powers fell just short of the necessary majority. The resolution, backed by Democrats and opposed by Republicans, was rejected in a 217-212 tie, with two Republican lawmakers joining all Democrats in voting for it.
The outcome reflects growing frustration among some Republicans on Capitol Hill with Trump's aggressive foreign policy actions, particularly in the western hemisphere. Despite his campaign promise to reduce US involvement in foreign conflicts, Trump has increasingly relied on military options to assert his authority.
Democrats argue that the resolution is necessary given Trump's recent actions, including the surprise raid that captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. They claim that Congress must assert its role in determining when the president can use wartime powers and prevent future abuses of executive authority.
The vote was a test of Republican leadership's willingness to stand up to Trump on foreign policy issues. With two Republicans voting with Democrats, it highlights deep divisions within the party over how far Trump should be allowed to extend his presidential power.
In contrast, Senate Republicans were able to narrowly reject a similar resolution last week, after two lawmakers reversed their earlier support for the measure due to pressure from the White House.
Trump's aggressive actions in recent months have reignited debate in Congress over the War Powers Act, which dates back to the Vietnam era. The resolution rejected by the House would have directed Trump to remove US troops from Venezuela and is seen as a way to assert congressional authority on foreign policy issues.
The outcome of this vote underscores the challenges faced by Republican leaders who are trying to balance their loyalty to Trump with their duty to uphold constitutional norms and prevent abuses of power.
The outcome reflects growing frustration among some Republicans on Capitol Hill with Trump's aggressive foreign policy actions, particularly in the western hemisphere. Despite his campaign promise to reduce US involvement in foreign conflicts, Trump has increasingly relied on military options to assert his authority.
Democrats argue that the resolution is necessary given Trump's recent actions, including the surprise raid that captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. They claim that Congress must assert its role in determining when the president can use wartime powers and prevent future abuses of executive authority.
The vote was a test of Republican leadership's willingness to stand up to Trump on foreign policy issues. With two Republicans voting with Democrats, it highlights deep divisions within the party over how far Trump should be allowed to extend his presidential power.
In contrast, Senate Republicans were able to narrowly reject a similar resolution last week, after two lawmakers reversed their earlier support for the measure due to pressure from the White House.
Trump's aggressive actions in recent months have reignited debate in Congress over the War Powers Act, which dates back to the Vietnam era. The resolution rejected by the House would have directed Trump to remove US troops from Venezuela and is seen as a way to assert congressional authority on foreign policy issues.
The outcome of this vote underscores the challenges faced by Republican leaders who are trying to balance their loyalty to Trump with their duty to uphold constitutional norms and prevent abuses of power.
. I mean, Trump's been president for like, forever now? And he's just keeping on doing his own thing, which is basically disregarding Congress altogether 
. I don't get why the Republicans can't just stand up to him and assert their authority. It's not like they're being weak or anything.
. It's crazy that it's still relevant now. I guess some things never change, right?
. But at the same time, it's still a pretty close vote, so I don't know if anything's really changed 
.
...
. THE FACT THAT REPUBLICANS CAN'T AGREE ON WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT IS JUST CRAZY, THOUGH. I THINK THEY SHOULD BE STANDING UP FOR CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY OVERALL. AND LET'S BE REAL, TRUMP'S ACTIONS IN VENEZUELA ARE LIKE, TOTALLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL 
. WE NEED MORE LEADERS WHO ACTUALLY CARE ABOUT THE RULE OF LAW AND NOT JUST TRUMP'S NEXT BIG ADVENTURE 
. The fact that two of them crossed party lines to vote for the resolution is a huge win for accountability 
. And let's be real, it's not like the US is getting invaded or anything 
. This shows that even in times of uncertainty, we can come together and find common ground. Plus, it'll be interesting to see how this plays out in the Senate and what kind of traction this resolution gets 
. It might just spark a bigger conversation about war powers and congressional oversight 
. Can't wait to see where this goes! 
. The fact that Senate Republicans could pass a similar measure last week but House members couldn't tells me there's a big difference between the two chambers. Maybe we're seeing some cracks in the wall of Trump's support among Republicans? 
I mean, the War Powers Act has been relevant since '68, so it's not like this is a new issue... still, gotta wonder what would've happened if that resolution had passed 
.
. It makes me think there are more Republicans out there who disagree with Trump than we're seeing right now 
anyway so theres this one rep who voted against it but still got close calls lol maybe trumps ego is getting the best of him 
. we'll see how that plays out.
, and until they actually do something concrete to stop trump's antics, i'll be skeptical 
. And yeah, two GOP reps joining the Ds on this one is pretty interesting - it shows there are still people within the party who want to hold Trump accountable 
. It's not an easy topic, but someone's gotta do it, right? And I love how Democrats are standing firm on this one - they're saying "hey, we need to make sure the president doesn't just start throwing troops around willy-nilly" 
.
also why is trump doing all these military things if he said he wanted to reduce us involvement in foreign conflicts? 
i don't get it 
can someone explain it to me in a simple way, pls? 
. I'm also curious to see how Senate Republicans will react next - did they just get cold feet or was it always part of their plan? 
Another day, another near-miss at stopping Trump's aggression 
. But this time around, I feel like there's something more going on here... maybe it's just a sign that people are starting to wake up and realize that our leaders need to stop playing games with the country's security 
.
. So what is going on? Is our leadership too scared to take a stand because they know Trump will just tweet about it and make a mountain out of a molehill 
?
anyway, can't say i'm surprised. trump's always been a bit of a wild card when it comes to foreign policy 
.
. it's like they're scared of getting roasted online 
. we need more accountability here and not just lip service about "upholding constitutional norms". 
i mean, what's next? another vote on whether to deploy troops to mars? 