WASHINGTON — U.S. Sen. John Fetterman, after breaking with his party to praise President Donald Trump's actions in Venezuela this week, on Thursday gave Democrats a critical vote to advance a resolution aimed at reining in the president's future military endeavors in the country.

The resolution calls for the direct removal of U.S. military from hostilities in or against Venezuela without the approval of Congress, which Trump did not seek before his order to capture Nicolas Maduro and "run" the country for the foreseeable future.

It passed narrowly, 52-47, with five Republicans joining all Democrats in a rare bipartisan vote to limit Trump's power. The resolution still awaits final passage, which would require another Senate vote.

The Pennsylvania Democrat's support for the measure had been in question after he not only declined to join others in criticizing Trump's lack of securing congressional approval but also as he blasted fellow Democrats for their reaction — calling it the latest "outrage du jour" in the second Trump era.

Still, Fetterman had previously supported a similar resolution in early November, when Trump was escalating his pressure campaign on Maduro by attacking Venezuelan ships in the Caribbean. In an interview with The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette this week, he also said he would not support a "full-on invasion."

"I wouldn't support that," he said, adding that any president should have the discretion to make one-off attacks like Trump had done before and was potentially doing again now in Venezuela.

After his vote on Thursday, Fetterman reiterated his approval of Maduro's arrest. He said in a statement that he voted to advance to force the resolution out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee "so we can continue this important debate" during a longer debate on the Senate floor.

Fetterman has not said how he would like to see the situation in Venezuela proceed, or whether he would ever support sending additional troops there.

Republicans who joined him and other Democrats in voting for the resolution said they do not think Trump should have unilateral power to increase the military campaign.

"While I support the operation to seize Nicolas Maduro, which was extraordinary in its precision and complexity, I do not support committing additional U.S. forces or entering into any long-term military involvement in Venezuela or Greenland without specific congressional authorization," U.S. Sen. Susan Collins, a moderate Republican from Maine, said in a statement.

U.S. Sen. Todd Young, an Indiana Republican, raised concerns about a potentially "drawn-out campaign" similar to the "forever wars" that Trump and many others campaigned against.

"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," Mr. Young said in a statement. "Although I remain open to persuasion, any future commitment of U.S. forces in Venezuela must be subject to debate and authorization in Congress."

Pennsylvania's other senator, freshman Republican Dave McCormick, voted against the resolution.

After attending a classified briefing with Trump officials on Wednesday, McCormick said in an interview with the Post-Gazette that he didn't expect Trump's next steps to require additional troops in Venezuela, though he said there is some uncertainty.

"There's a legitimate question about what comes next. I think there should be humility," McCormick said. "Phase two could be harder than phase one, because there's a lot of complexity involved."

An Army veteran who served in the 82nd Airborne Division when U.S. troops captured Panamanian leader Manuel Noriega in 1990, McCormick celebrated Trump's move and the "extraordinary" military operation to arrest Maduro without any American casualties.

He said he supports what he believes are the president's next objectives — stopping the international drug trade that Venezuela participates in, ending the country's role as being a "safe haven" for adversaries like Iran and Cuba, building back the Venezuelan oil industry for the benefit of Venezuela and the U.S., and putting Venezuelan people back "in the driver's seat" through democratic government.

Although Trump has said the U.S. will "run" the country in the process of some of those goals, McCormick said he thought that was "probably the wrong word."

"I don't expect any of that is going to require boots on the ground, and, as I said, I think we should proceed with humility," McCormick said. "But I also think that there's a moment of enormous opportunity that's been created, that the Democrats and Republicans have been calling for for decades."

Momentum for the war powers resolution, sponsored by U.S. Sen. Tim Kaine, a Virginia Democrat, grew this week as the Trump administration raised bipartisan concerns that it would turn its military efforts toward Greenland. Trump has long pursued the territory of Denmark and threatened to take it by force if necessary.

Fetterman, in a statement that started going viral on social media on Wednesday, said Greenland would have "massive strategic benefits for the United States," and "ideally, we purchase it — similar to our purchases of Alaska or the Louisiana Purchase."

The day before, in the interview with the Post-Gazette, he compared fellow Democrats' reaction to Trump's comments on Greenland to a long list of what he called "rage bait" in the past year — from Trump's demolishing of the East Wing in the White House to the threatening of firing ABC late night host Jimmy Kimmel.

"We just keep pinballs going everywhere. I mean, I don't think we're going to invade Greenland. I don't support invading Greenland," he said before referring to the potential national security benefits of having it as a U.S. territory. "But remember, Greenland has less people than Harrisburg, and it's three times the size of Texas."

© 2026 the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Visit www.post-gazette.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.