The Senate voted on Tuesday to block debate on an effort aimed at stopping President Donald Trump from taking military action against Cuba without authorization from Congress. Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla) raised a point of order on the Senate floor, arguing that the legislation was not privileged, “due to U.S. troops not being engaged in hostilities.” Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), a lead sponsor of the legislation, said Congress should have the power to stop a war before it starts, adding that “the U.S. is using force to block energy from going to Cuba” — something that would “certainly” be considered hostilities if imposed on the United States.
Scott’s attempt to block debate passed by a vote of 51-47, with only Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) crossing party lines to vote against, while Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) was the one Democrat to vote in favor. Sens. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) and Mark Warner (D-Va.) did not vote. The resolution , introduced by Sens. Kaine, Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), and Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) would have declared a “blockade or quarantine of Cuba,” which is happening right now , as military “hostilities” and therefore subject to congressional authorization.
The measure emerged amid growing fears that the Trump administration is laying the groundwork for a new military conflict in the Caribbean. Ever since the operation that resulted in the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in January, Trump and senior officials have repeatedly suggested that leadership in Havana could be next. Immediately after Maduro’s removal, Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned that “if I lived in Havana and I was in the government, I’d be concerned.”
Trump himself has said that “ Cuba is going to be next ” and that “ we may stop by Cuba after we’re finished with this ,” referring to the war with Iran. Zeteo reported earlier this month that the Pentagon was actively preparing military options for the island.
The Senate vote unfolded with Cuba already on the brink, facing a worsening humanitarian crisis, exacerbated by the U.S.-imposed energy blockade that has choked off fuel supplies and contributed to prolonged blackouts, food and medicine shortages, and the collapse of basic services.
“You would go along the streets, and there are some lights that are driven by solar panels, but for the most part, everything was black. Kids are not going to school,” Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) told Responsible Statecraft’s Connor Echols after a recent trip to Cuba. “You don't see traffic during the day. The roads are pretty much completely cleared because nobody's going anywhere.”
Despite these provocations and apparent preparations for war, there is some evidence that the contours of a deal between Washington and Havana are starting to emerge, as the Quincy Institute’s Lee Schlenker laid out in RS last week.
“Despite the president’s near-daily threats to ‘take over Cuba’ if it doesn’t ‘fall on its own,’ high-level negotiations are taking place and a deal is shaping up that could see historic transformations on the island and, more importantly, the end of a counterproductive and outdated Cold War policy that no longer serves U.S. goals or interests in the region,” Schlenker said before the vote. The sponsors of the legislation argue that Trump’s policy is aimed explicitly at overthrowing the ruling Cuban government. “There’s no security threat to the United States,” Kaine told Dropsite on Tuesday. “This is purely a regime change effort.” “Trump, Rubio, and the rest of the war hawks in the administration will continue to involve the U.S. in more foreign wars,” added Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) in a statement before the vote. “As if the disaster of the Iran War and the resulting spike in oil prices weren’t enough, Trump is threatening to intervene in Cuba as well,” he added. “The American people want nothing to do with it—they want lower prices, good health care, and affordable homes, not a new war to satisfy neoconservatives in South Florida.”
Congress has never successfully blocked a president from carrying out military action through war powers legislation, though they have increasingly become a tool for members to register their displeasure with unilateral military action. This session, Congress has already voted on a series of measures aimed at ending U.S. hostilities in the Caribbean, Venezuela, and Iran. Rep. Nydia Velázquez (D-N.Y.) has introduced a similar measure in the House. Regardless of the outcome if the Senate eventually votes on the War Powers Resolution, Schlenker urged the House to take on the measure “to show this administration that the American people want diplomacy and engagement, not coercion and confrontation.”