The dramatic removal of Nicolás Maduro from power through a swift U.S. military operation has ignited intense debate in Washington. While images from Venezuela initially dominated headlines, lawmakers quickly shifted their attention inward, questioning how such a consequential action occurred without clear congressional authorization.

The episode revived long-standing concerns about the balance of power between Congress and the presidency. Critics argue the operation highlights a pattern in which executive authority over military force has steadily expanded, often sidelining lawmakers from decisions traditionally shared between branches of government.

Tim Kaine has emerged as a central figure in the pushback, announcing plans to force a Senate vote on a war powers resolution that would block further military action against Venezuela without congressional approval. Kaine has framed the issue as a constitutional test, warning that unilateral action risks normalizing executive-led warfare as the nation nears its 250th anniversary.

Supporters of the operation argue that requiring congressional approval could slow responses to urgent threats and limit flexibility in protecting U.S. interests. Critics counter that deliberation is a constitutional safeguard, not an obstacle, and that the outcome of the upcoming vote may determine whether Congress reasserts its role—or continues to yield authority over war decisions to the executive branch.