How Congress Has Shaped U.S.-Venezuela Relations

A look at the congressional policy behind the current Venezuela Crisis

The Venezuelan flag flies. Image provided by Aboodi Vesakaran on Pexels.

The January 2026 of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro by the Trump administration is often characterized as a war between two executives: Trump and Maduro. As a result, the congressional policy that has culminated in this moment gets pushed quietly into the background. Yet, for the past decade, Congress has been setting the precedent with Venezuela, attempting a delicate balance between its interests in protecting democracy and in limiting the war powers of the executive. Through sanctions and democracy promotion, Congress helped build the legal framework for U.S. pressure on Venezuelan leaders, but now, after the removal of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and semi-regime change, Congress must decide to what extent to support or limit U.S. control in the region, particularly concerning the use of U.S. force and involvement in Venezuelan oil.

Want to help shape the future of U.S. policy with Venezuela?

With IssueVoter, you can easily stay updated on all foreign policy legislation, hear all sides of the debate, and send your opinion directly to your representative.

Make your voice heard on foreign policy and the balance of powers today.

Visit IssueVoter.org.

Constitutional Background

The Constitution divides war powers between Congress and the President. Article I gives Congress the authority to declare war, while Article II gives the President, as the Commander-in-chief the power to direct military operations. In theory, Congress authorizes military action while the President executes it; however, in practice, U.S. policy has operated more in a constitutional gray area. Congress has not formally declared war since World War Two, yet throughout the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, presidents have initiated military and political interventions abroad, from Latin America during the Cold War to Iraq and Libya. But perhaps the executive military action that drew the most attention was the Vietnam War. Although military action was authorized by Congress with the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, the conflict expanded dramatically without a formal declaration of war, drawing concerns over the expansion of executive authority. In response, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution of 1973, requiring the President to notify Congress within forty-eight hours of deploying forces to hostilities and requiring the approval of Congress to continue hostilities long-term. Although frequently challenged, this law remains Congress’s largest attempt to reassert its authority over war powers. As such, the history of the U.S. Venezuela policy has emerged out of this legal and constitutional framework, with Congress authorizing sanctions and democracy assistance and the President executing that direction.

Congressional Foundations: Sanctions and Democracy Assistance

Both sanctions and democracy assistance toward the Venezuelan regime trace their legal roots to congressional statutes rather than to mere executive unilateralism. In 2014, Congress passed the Venezuela Defense of Human Rights and Civil Society Act, which, for the first time, required the President to impose targeted sanctions on Venezuelan officials linked to human rights abuses, corruption, and actions undermining democratic processes. Congress consequently set the tone for U.S. foreign policy, explicitly guiding the actions of the executive and pressuring Venezuela’s government. Building on the 2014 act, the VERDAD Act (Venezuela Emergency Relief, Democracy Assistance, and Development Act of 2019) expanded upon earlier sanctions by mandating humanitarian relief and democracy support while tightening sanctions to encourage constitutional solutions and economic reconstruction. This act is widely seen as congressional acknowledgment that sanctions alone could not stabilize Venezuela’s political crisis and that proactive democracy assistance was essential. Essentially, it set a precedent for including positive reinforcements for democracy rather than sole disincentives. Finally, although not specifically targeted to Venezuela, Congress expanded the executive’s ability to sanction individuals for human rights abuses worldwide with the Global Magnitsky Act in 2016. Congress passed it as a tool to ramp up pressure on abusive leaders, and it has been frequently applied to Venezuelan officials as part of broader sanctions packages. This reaffirmed the power of the President to take executive action in order to combat human rights abuses.

From Legislative Direction to Executive Enforcement

As the U.S. executive branch escalated pressures in response to Venezuela’s political state, these Acts steadily upheld the legal authority for the executive to do so. Early executive sanctions under the 2014 act initially focused on Visa restrictions, asset freezes, and specific individuals were legitimized by congressional support for sanctions tied to democratic backsliding and corruption. This signaled broad legislative support for economic pressures and policy tools against Venezuela. Against this background, the executive branch was able to expand sanctions in 2017 and 2018, including restrictions on Venezuelan government debt and, later, sanctions on the state-owned oil company, Petróleos de Venezuela, by building on the policy direction Congress established. In this way, legislative focus on human rights and anti-corruption provided the legal and political justification for later executive actions that targeted Venezuela’s financial and oil sectors as an effort to pressure the Maduro regime.

Essentially, Congress had set the goals and the executive branch had wielded the tools — that is, until now.

A Turning Point: Military Action Without Congressional Approval

The military action that began this past year, with the attacks on fishing boats off the coast of Venezuela and culminating in “Operation Absolute Resolve” — the removal of President Maduro and his wife, was carried out without congressional backing or approval, marking a pivot in U.S. foreign policy. This controversy has sparked congressional debates and bills on two fronts: (1) the limits of executive power and war powers, and (2) the extent to which the U.S. should continue to be involved in Venezuelan economic operations.

Debates Over U.S. Economic Involvement in Venezuelan Oil

The introduction of legislation like the Protecting Taxpayers from Risky Investments in Venezuela Act (S. 3621) demonstrates congressional potential to push back against expanded U.S. economic engagement in Venezuela’s oil sector. This bill would prohibit any federal funds from supporting Venezuela’s oil infrastructure, reflecting debates over whether the U.S. should facilitate investment or instead maintain economic pressure until democratic reforms are secure. The United States government has already begun easing restrictions on foreign oil companies operating in Venezuela by issuing new general licenses that allow energy firms to buy, sell, transport, store, and refine Venezuelan oil after years of strict sanctions, heightening the debate around sanctions relief. Critics argue that easing sanctions undermines political leverage and signals tolerance of undemocratic regimes, prioritizing financial gain over democratic values. However, supporters point out that economic support of the Venezuelan oil industry could stabilize the country and create conditions more conducive to potential government reform.

Renewed Debate Over War Powers

The other key debate centers on constitutional war powers and U.S. military involvement in Venezuela. Since the use of non-congressionally approved military force in Venezuela in 2025 and 2026, congressional efforts have sought to limit the President’s military powers. The way the War Powers Resolution of 1973 may apply to Venezuela has rekindled debates about the balance between the war-making powers in Congress and the commander-in-chief powers assigned to the President. Some lawmakers argue that current U.S. actions under the 1973 statute qualify as “hostilities” and should require explicit congressional approval, while others see this as justified under commander-in-chief powers. The result of these debates has been the introduction of multiple resolutions aimed at requiring the removal of U.S. forces in Venezuela without congressional authorization, reflecting concerns that the administration was overstepping constitutional boundaries.

The United States Congress, Washington, D.C., Public domain on Wikimedia Commons.

Current Debates in Congress

**S.J. Res. 90 — **A joint resolution, sponsored by Senator Tim Kaine [D-VA], to direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities within or against Venezuela that have not been authorized by Congress. Proponents argue that the resolution is necessary to reassert Congress’s authority over war powers and to prevent the U.S. from entering another military conflict without congressional approval. Opponents contend that restricting the executive’s ability to conduct military operations could limit the ability to respond quickly to national security threats. This bill has been introduced in the Senate but has not yet been voted on. Additionally, the Trump administration is against the resolution, so it is unlikely to get the President’s signature if it were to pass.

Conclusion

The removal of Nicolás Maduro and recent U.S. military actions in Venezuela didn’t begin with a lone executive action. For over a decade, Congress laid the groundwork for U.S. pressure on Venezuela through sanctions and democracy assistance. The executive branch acted within, and eventually stretched, that framework. What began as congressionally supported economic pressure has moved into executive-led military involvement without clear congressional authorization, leaving many open, and controversial, questions about U.S. economic involvement. As a result, these questions of constitutional powers and foreign policy have come to the forefront of the American consciousness — questions that will continue to demand deliberation in Congress for some time.

Make Your Voice Heard

Want to tell your representative how you feel about war powers and foreign policy?

Visit IssueVoter.org to learn about the bills you care about, send your opinion directly to your representative, and track how well your congresspeople are representing you.

IssueVoter is a non-partisan platform that makes civic engagement accessible, efficient, and impactful. Stay up-to-date with legislation and make your voice heard! Sign up for IssueVoter to keep track of Congress from your inbox!