By Timothy Hendricks- While Trump’s own party members in the Senate refuse to rubber-stamp his Venezuela policy, some leaders in the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) are rushing to endorse it.
In a stunning display of cross-aisle unity, the U.S. Senate has delivered a pointed message to President Donald Trump: no more unilateral military adventures in Venezuela without congressional oversight. This vote, occurring on January 8, 2026, underscores a new political reality where even members of Trump’s own Republican Party are willing to curb his aggressive foreign policy impulses. It’s a reminder that in America, the Constitution’s checks and balances can still prevail over executive overreach, especially when it risks dragging the nation into another quagmire over oil and ideology.
The measure in question is a War Powers Resolution designed to bar President Trump from further military action against Venezuela without explicit approval from Congress. Specifically, the resolution states that it would require the president to remove U.S. armed forces from “imminent engagement” in hostilities “within or against Venezuela” absent further congressional authorisation. This comes on the heels of the controversial U.S. operation on January 3, 2026, which involved airstrikes and the capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro, resulting in civilian casualties and international outcry.
The Senate voted 52-47 to advance this resolution, with five Republicans – Rand Paul of Kentucky, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine, Todd Young of Indiana, and Josh Hawley of Missouri – joining all Democrats in this procedural step. While the full measure still needs to pass both the Senate and the House, and could face a presidential veto, the vote itself is a symbolic gut punch to Trump, who has openly boasted about “running” Venezuela until a transition suits his administration.
The effects of this vote ripple far beyond Capitol Hill. It signals a rare bipartisan consensus on war powers, harkening back to similar resolutions during Trump’s first term on Iran. By advancing this measure, Congress is reasserting its constitutional authority under Article I, which grants it the sole power to declare war. This could deter escalation in Venezuela, where U.S. forces have already conducted bombings and detentions without prior legislative debate.
Politically, it exposes fractures within the GOP: those five defectors represent a libertarian-to-moderate wing weary of endless foreign entanglements. For Trump, it’s a humiliating rebuke from allies who should be his staunchest supporters, potentially weakening his leverage in negotiations with Venezuelan factions or regional players. More broadly, it fosters a healthier democracy by forcing future presidents to justify military actions to the people’s representatives, reducing the risk of impulsive wars that cost American lives and treasure.
However, in a bizarre twist, while Trump’s own party members in the Senate refuse to rubber-stamp his Venezuela policy, some leaders in the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) are rushing to endorse it. Guyana’s President Irfaan Ali, whose country has long been entangled in territorial disputes with Venezuela, has been particularly vocal in his support. In a statement following a conversation with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Ali commended “the leadership of President Trump and Secretary Rubio in reaffirming a shared commitment to freedom, democracy and regional security.”
He further elaborated on social media, saying, “Guyana supports efforts that uphold democratic norms and ensure that the region remains a Zone of Peace. The Government of Guyana welcomes the leadership of the President of the United States in reaffirming shared commitments to freedom, democracy, and regional security.” Trinidad and Tobago’s Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar has echoed similar sentiments, looking forward to “renewed cooperation” with a post-Maduro Venezuela.
This fawning alignment is profoundly troubling. When these leaders should stand firmly on the side of international law, human rights, and human dignity, they shamelessly support actions that are contrary to the rule of law. The U.S. operation in Venezuela bypassed the United Nations, ignored sovereign boundaries, and resulted in unnecessary deaths; all hallmarks of unilateralism that CARICOM nations have historically decried when directed at smaller states.
Guyana, in particular, has invoked the International Court of Justice to resolve its Essequibo border dispute with Venezuela, yet Ali’s endorsement of Trump’s extralegal raid undermines the very principles of peaceful adjudication and non-intervention that the region claims to uphold. It’s a hypocritical stance that prioritises short-term security gains, perhaps tied to Guyana’s booming oil sector and U.S. alliances, over long-term regional stability.
It is sad that some of our leaders are unable, for whatever reason – be it economic dependence, political expediency, or fear of U.S. reprisal – to stand on certain principles. This moral flexibility erodes the credibility of CARICOM as a bloc committed to sovereignty and multilateralism. No wonder President Trump does not regard these countries with much respect. In an infamous 2018 Oval Office meeting on immigration, Trump reportedly asked, “Why are we having all these people from shithole countries come here?”; referring to Haiti, El Salvador, and African nations.
While the White House initially denied the exact phrasing, Trump himself confirmed it in a 2025 speech, doubling down on his disdain for what he calls “Third World” nations. Such derogatory language reveals a worldview where smaller countries are disposable pawns, valued only for their resources or strategic utility. By aligning with Trump’s aggressive tactics, leaders like Ali invite this very contempt, signaling weakness rather than strength.
The consequences of such spineless leadership on our societies are profound and far-reaching. Weak leaders foster environments ripe for corruption, where foreign powers dictate terms and local interests are sidelined. In Guyana, for instance, unchecked support for U.S. intervention could exacerbate internal divisions, fuel anti-American sentiment, and invite retaliatory instability from Venezuelan remnants.
Across CARICOM, it risks eroding public trust in governance, leading to social unrest, economic dependency, and erosion of human rights as leaders prioritise alliances over accountability. Societies suffer when principles are sacrificed: poverty persists, inequality widens, and the dignity of citizens is compromised. History shows that nations led by principled figures thrive through respect and self-determination, while those with pliable rulers become footnotes in the agendas of superpowers.
