U.S. Senator Todd Young, R-Indiana, was one of five Republican Senators who voted Thursday in favor of the war powers resolution that could limit President Donald Trump’s ability to conduct further attacks against Venezuela.
Indiana political science experts said the vote was initially surprising but ultimately tracked with Young’s military background.
Aaron Dusso, professor of political science at Indiana University Indianapolis, said he was surprised that Young voted to advance the resolution because “it’s not the kind of resistance to the Trump administration that we’ve seen from Todd Young so far.”
Young’s vote shows that some Republicans are beginning to think about the life of the Republican Party after Trump leaves the White House, Dusso said.
“This would be my guess, is that Todd Young is looking at that and thinking you have to distinguish yourself and not just be a sycophant,” Dusso said.
Jennifer Hora, a professor of political science at Valparaiso University, said when she heard that a few Republicans voted to advance the war powers resolution she figured Young would be a part of that group given his experience as a U.S. Marine.
“Senator Young has been a much more traditional Republican. While certainly he votes along with the Trump administration an overwhelming amount of time, he has taken some more traditional Republican stances in his career,” Hora said.
The Senate advanced a resolution that sounded a note of disapproval for Trump’s expanding ambitions in the Western Hemisphere, including his renewed call to acquire Greenland.
Democrats and five Republicans voted to advance the war powers resolution on a 52-47 vote and ensure a vote next week on final passage. It has virtually no chance of becoming law because Trump would likely veto it if it were to pass the Republican-controlled House. Congress can override a presidential veto, but it requires a two-thirds majority in both chambers.
Still, it was a significant gesture that showed unease among some Republicans after the U.S. military seized Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro in a surprise nighttime raid last weekend.
The Trump administration is now seeking to control Venezuela’s oil resources and its government, but a war powers resolution would require congressional approval for any further attacks on the South American country.
Young issued a statement Thursday that he supports Trump’s decision “to bring Nicolás Maduro to justice for his many crimes” and that the “Venezuelan people now have a new hope.” Young also praised the U.S. military personnel who carried out the mission.
“Today’s Senate vote is about potential future military action, not completed successful operations. The President and members of his team have stated that the United States now ‘runs’ Venezuela. It is unclear if that means that an American military presence will be required to stabilize the country,” Young said. “I — along with what I believe to be the vast majority of Hoosiers — am not prepared to commit American troops to that mission. Although I remain open to persuasion, any future commitment of U.S. forces in Venezuela must be subject to debate and authorization in Congress.”
Young said he supported Trump’s campaign message against forever wars.
“A drawn-out campaign in Venezuela involving the American military, even if unintended, would be the opposite of President Trump’s goal of ending foreign entanglements. The Constitution requires that Congress first authorize operations involving American boots on the ground, and my vote today reaffirms that longstanding congressional role,” Young said.
The other Republicans who backed the resolution were Senators Josh Hawley of Missouri, Rand Paul of Kentucky, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine.
Trump reacted to their votes by saying on social media that they “should never be elected to office again” and that the vote “greatly hampers American Self Defense and National Security.” Trump criticized the Senate vote as “impeding the President’s Authority as Commander in Chief” under the Constitution.
Trump likely felt he had to call out the Republicans who voted to advance the measure because “public condemnation” is how the President keeps his party “in line,” Dusso said.
Presidents of both parties have long argued the War Powers Act infringes on their authority. Passed in 1973 in the aftermath of the Vietnam War — and over the veto of Republican President Richard Nixon — it has never succeeded in directly forcing a president to halt military action.
Congress declares war while the president serves as commander in chief, according to the Constitution. But lawmakers have not formally declared war since World War II, granting presidents broad latitude to act unilaterally. The law requires presidents to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying forces and to end military action within 60 to 90 days absent authorization — limits that presidents of both parties have routinely stretched.
Many presidents have taken military action, with the key to success being not to label the action as a war, while Congress tends to “side-eye” such a move, Dusso said.
“This has been a gray area basically from day one,” Dusso said. “I think the Trump administration is really good at trying to find those gray areas and then exploit them.”
Hora said there hasn’t yet been any indication that there are enough votes in the U.S. House to advance the measure to the president’s desk. While Trump hasn’t said specifically said he would veto the bill, he has made negative comments about the bill.
“You can take that as an indicator that he would veto it,” Hora said. “Certainly, they do not have anywhere near veto-proof majorities in either the House or the Senate. But, it is a significant signal to the White House because they didn’t have to … bring this to the vote.”
The Associated Press contributed.
Copyright © 2026, Chicago Tribune