Senate Blocks Resolution to Remove U.S. Armed Forces from Hostilities in Venezuela
In a revealing and troubling development, the United States Senate has voted down a joint resolution (S.J. Res. 90) that sought to direct the removal of U.S. Armed Forces from hostilities within or against Venezuela — hostilities that have not been authorized by Congress. The motion’s failure underscores an ongoing crisis in American foreign policy and a troubling disregard for both constitutional authority and international sovereignty.
At Sustainable Action Now, we believe that unchecked military action, particularly when it lacks congressional approval, represents not only a constitutional violation but a moral failure. America’s foreign interventions, often justified under the guise of “democracy promotion” or “national interest,” continue to destabilize nations, displace communities, and strain diplomatic relations. Venezuela is no exception.
For readers following the politics behind this and other crucial policy decisions, we encourage you to explore more at Sustainable Action Now Politics.
The Resolution and What It Stood For
The joint resolution (S.J. Res. 90) was introduced to assert Congress’s constitutional role in authorizing military engagement. Its language was clear: unless Congress explicitly approves such hostilities, U.S. Armed Forces should be withdrawn from involvement in or against Venezuela.
This measure was grounded in the War Powers Resolution of 1973, a law designed to prevent presidents from unilaterally deploying U.S. forces into conflict zones without legislative consent. The framers of the Constitution vested the power to declare war in Congress precisely to prevent such unilateral decisions. Yet, over decades, executive overreach has eroded that balance, allowing presidents of both parties to engage in undeclared military operations under vague claims of “national security.”
The failure of this resolution reflects a troubling bipartisan pattern — where even symbolic checks on executive power struggle to gain traction in the Senate. The result leaves the door open for continued military involvement in regions like Latin America without clear oversight or public accountability.
U.S. Policy Toward Venezuela: Decades of Interference
Venezuela’s story is complex, but U.S. involvement in the country’s affairs has a long and controversial history. From economic sanctions to covert support for opposition groups, Washington has repeatedly inserted itself into Venezuela’s political turmoil.
Under the Trump administration, pressure intensified as the U.S. recognized opposition leader Juan Guaidó as the country’s legitimate president, rejecting the leadership of Nicolás Maduro. This recognition came alongside a series of harsh economic sanctions that crippled Venezuela’s oil industry — the backbone of its economy — and exacerbated a humanitarian crisis that left millions of Venezuelans struggling to access food, medicine, and basic services.
While advocates of these policies claim they aim to restore democracy, critics argue that they instead punish civilians and deepen instability. A U.S. military presence, however limited, raises the stakes even higher, introducing the risk of direct confrontation and further suffering for a nation already in crisis.
The Constitutional and Ethical Implications
The rejection of S.J. Res. 90 represents more than a single policy decision — it highlights a broader erosion of democratic checks and balances. The U.S. Constitution explicitly requires congressional approval before engaging in acts of war. When presidents bypass this authority, it undermines the very foundation of American democracy.
Moreover, the ethical implications extend far beyond Washington. For Venezuelans, American involvement often translates to fear, uncertainty, and hardship. Military posturing — whether through direct engagement or proxy tactics — does not bring peace or democracy. It fuels resentment, drives displacement, and erodes the United States’ credibility as a global advocate for human rights.
At Sustainable Action Now, we stand firmly against unauthorized military interventions and advocate for diplomacy, humanitarian support, and multilateral engagement over aggression. The future of Venezuela — and any nation — should be determined by its people, not by the influence or force of foreign powers.
The Human Cost of Policy
Behind every Senate vote lies a human story. While policy debates unfold in Washington, millions of Venezuelans continue to endure the consequences of political unrest and economic collapse. Widespread shortages of food, medicine, and clean water have driven a mass migration crisis, with millions fleeing to neighboring countries like Colombia, Peru, and Brazil.
Sanctions and foreign interference compound this suffering. By isolating Venezuela economically, the U.S. and its allies have effectively cut off avenues for humanitarian aid and recovery. The refusal to de-escalate or withdraw military involvement signals a continued prioritization of geopolitical influence over human lives.
The Sustainable Action Now perspective is clear: sustainability is not just environmental — it’s humanitarian, economic, and political. Peace and stability require investment in people, not warfare.
A Failure of Vision — and an Opportunity for Change
The Senate’s failure to pass S.J. Res. 90 reflects the entrenched power of militarism in American politics, where defense contractors, partisan posturing, and foreign interests often overshadow moral leadership. Yet, this moment also offers an opportunity for reflection and reform.
Public awareness is growing, and movements advocating for peace, transparency, and congressional accountability are gaining traction. Organizations, activists, and independent media outlets are exposing the costs of endless wars and pushing for policies rooted in justice and sustainability.
To build a more just and peaceful world, the U.S. must embrace a new model of foreign policy — one that rejects interventionism and invests instead in cooperation, human rights, and environmental recovery.
For those seeking to stay informed about these critical shifts in U.S. policy and their global impact, visit our dedicated section on Politics and Global Affairs.
Sustainable Action Now’s Call to Accountability
At Sustainable Action Now, we believe it is time for the American people to demand accountability — not just for environmental policy, but for every action taken in our name abroad. We must ensure that no military engagement occurs without congressional approval, public transparency, and clear humanitarian justification.
Unchecked military power fuels cycles of violence, economic instability, and ecological destruction. Every drone strike, every deployment, and every sanction that harms innocent people contradicts the principles of sustainability and justice we fight for.
The failure of S.J. Res. 90 may represent a setback in the effort to restore constitutional oversight, but it also reaffirms why movements like ours must continue. Sustainable change requires persistence, truth-telling, and the courage to challenge systems of power that profit from perpetual conflict.
Together, through advocacy, awareness, and action, we can redefine what it means to protect not only our planet — but our shared humanity.
“Trump Is Against Humankind” — Global Leaders Condemn U.S. Absence at Climate Summit
At Sustainable Action Now, we believe that leadership on climate change isn’t just a matter of policy — it’s a moral responsibility. As nations gather at global climate summits to determine the future of our planet, the absence of the United States under Donald Trump’s leadership has left a void that is being felt across the world.
At a recent international climate conference, world leaders didn’t hold back their frustration. Their speeches reflected a mix of anger, disappointment, and deep concern over America’s withdrawal from global climate commitments. One headline captured the sentiment succinctly: “Trump is against humankind.” That stark statement echoed throughout the summit halls, underscoring not only the political divide but the moral weight of inaction in the face of an escalating global emergency.
A Global Chorus of Frustration
Thursday’s summit speeches revealed a clear truth: while nations differ in their approaches to economic and environmental issues, most share one conviction — climate change is real, urgent, and demands unified action. Yet, the U.S., once a leader in environmental progress, has become a source of dismay and uncertainty under Trump’s policies.
World leaders from Europe, Asia, Africa, and Latin America voiced outrage that the U.S. had chosen to stand apart from international efforts like the Paris Agreement, which aims to limit global temperature rise and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Their words carried both anger and sorrow, recognizing that without American leadership, the global response to climate change becomes fragmented.
Still, beneath the frustration lies ambivalence. Many nations, reliant on trade, aid, or security partnerships with the United States, are forced to navigate a complex balancing act — condemning America’s environmental retreat while still maintaining diplomatic ties. This tension was evident in speech after speech: a struggle between outrage and realpolitik, between moral clarity and strategic necessity.
The Consequences of U.S. Climate Inaction
The Trump administration’s environmental rollback was one of the most aggressive in modern history. Dozens of regulations aimed at protecting clean air, water, and wildlife were dismantled. The U.S. withdrew from the Paris Climate Accord, opened protected lands to drilling, and prioritized fossil fuel production under the guise of “energy dominance.”
These policies have not only set back national progress but have also weakened global cooperation. The world’s second-largest emitter of carbon cannot simply opt out of the fight against climate change without consequences. The vacuum left by the U.S. absence has forced other nations — including China and the European Union — to shoulder leadership responsibilities once shared by Washington.
But this power shift also comes with risks. Without consistent global standards and collective enforcement, efforts to limit emissions remain inconsistent, and developing nations struggle to meet targets without adequate financial and technological support.
Global Climate Talks in the Age of Ambivalence
This year’s climate summit was a study in contrasts — a mix of hope and hesitation. Countries reaffirmed their commitments to renewable energy, sustainable infrastructure, and climate resilience, but the absence of the U.S. cast a long shadow.
For many smaller and developing nations, particularly those in the Global South already suffering from climate-related disasters, U.S. disengagement feels like abandonment. Rising sea levels, droughts, and extreme weather are not theoretical future risks — they are today’s reality. Without unified global support, the most vulnerable populations are left to bear the brunt of a crisis they did little to create.
Despite this, some world leaders struck a determined tone, pledging to continue climate efforts with or without American participation. Their resolve reflects a growing understanding that climate action cannot wait for political will to catch up — it must continue regardless of who occupies positions of power.
Connecting Climate Policy to Broader Systems of Exploitation
The refusal to confront the climate crisis mirrors deeper systemic failures in how the U.S. government, under Trump, prioritized corporate profit over human welfare. The same mindset that denies climate science also fuels policies that exploit labor, dismantle protections for the vulnerable, and empower private industries at the expense of public good.
This pattern extends beyond environmental issues — it can be seen in the expansion of for-profit prisons, the privatization of public resources, and the commodification of essential services. These systems share a common denominator: profit-driven decision-making that disregards human and ecological well-being.
Through our ongoing Private Prisons Initiative, Sustainable Action Now examines how privatization and deregulation intersect across industries — from the justice system to environmental management. When corporations, rather than communities, dictate policy, sustainability and justice both suffer. The climate crisis is not isolated from this larger dynamic; it’s a symptom of a broken system that values short-term profit over long-term survival.
The Future of Global Leadership
The anger expressed by world leaders wasn’t simply about one absent president — it was about the erosion of moral leadership from a nation that once championed progress. True leadership on climate change requires honesty, humility, and collaboration. It means acknowledging responsibility, investing in innovation, and prioritizing humanity’s collective future over political ego.
As new administrations and global alliances form, the challenge will be to rebuild trust, restore scientific integrity, and reinvest in global partnerships. The climate crisis demands a united front, not a fractured one.
While Trump’s absence was symbolic of larger policy failures, it also galvanized new energy among those who refuse to let political denial define the future. Around the world, citizens, activists, scientists, and even some U.S. states and cities continue to lead where national policy has failed — a reminder that real leadership often begins from the ground up.
A Call to Sustainable Action
At Sustainable Action Now, we know that environmental justice, social equity, and human rights are inseparable. The fight against climate change is also a fight against corruption, exploitation, and inequality. It’s about ensuring that future generations inherit a livable planet — one where the air is clean, the oceans thrive, and the economy is built on fairness rather than greed.
The global message from this year’s climate summit is clear: the time for excuses is over. Political denial and corporate influence cannot dictate the fate of the planet. True sustainability requires courage — the courage to lead, to change, and to hold even the most powerful accountable.
For more information about how U.S. policy, privatization, and corporate power shape the fight for a sustainable future, visit our Climate Initiative. Together, we can confront the systems that perpetuate harm and build a more just, sustainable world for all.
The Truth Behind Trump’s Claim About Lower Gas Prices
At Sustainable Action Now, we’re dedicated to cutting through the noise and uncovering the full picture behind policies that affect both people and the planet. Recently, former President Donald Trump has claimed credit for bringing down gas prices in the United States—an assertion that’s made headlines and stirred debate. While it’s true that Americans are currently paying less at the pump than they were a year ago, the reality behind this drop is far more complex than political rhetoric suggests.
Gas prices are influenced by a web of interconnected global factors—geopolitical tensions, supply chain dynamics, production levels, and even long-term energy policy decisions. Attributing these fluctuations to a single administration or politician oversimplifies a far-reaching issue that affects every sector of society.
The Myth of Political Control Over Gas Prices
Gas prices are often treated as a direct reflection of a president’s success or failure, but that’s not how the global energy market works. No single political figure controls oil prices. Instead, prices at the pump are primarily shaped by global crude oil markets—markets influenced by the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), energy producers like Russia and the U.S., and broader economic trends that dictate demand.
When former President Trump claims that his policies are responsible for lower gas prices, it’s essential to examine what’s actually driving the numbers. Analysts point to a combination of factors, including global production adjustments, shifting post-pandemic demand, and strategic releases from the U.S. oil reserves. However, these are the results of both market forces and long-term policy decisions made across multiple administrations—not the result of one politician’s actions.
In fact, domestic gasoline prices often lag months behind global market changes, meaning that the effects Americans see at the pump are usually tied to economic conditions that began long before any single administration took credit.
The Broader Energy Picture
The U.S. remains one of the largest producers and consumers of oil in the world, and energy independence has long been a talking point across political lines. However, energy independence doesn’t automatically translate to price stability. Even when the U.S. produces enough oil to meet domestic demand, global market volatility still determines how much consumers pay.
Moreover, political decisions that focus solely on boosting fossil fuel production often ignore the long-term costs—both environmental and economic—of relying on nonrenewable resources. Short-term relief at the pump may come at the expense of sustainable energy investments that could provide price stability and environmental protection for decades to come.
This is why Sustainable Action Now continues to advocate for an energy future that reduces dependency on oil altogether, shifting toward renewable energy infrastructure, green transportation, and sustainable community planning. These solutions aren’t just environmentally sound—they’re economically strategic.
The Role of Policy—and the Illusion of Quick Fixes
Political messaging around gas prices often falls into the trap of offering short-term fixes for long-term problems. Cutting regulations or opening new drilling sites might create the appearance of immediate results, but such actions rarely have measurable effects on prices in the near term. Instead, they risk deepening long-term environmental damage and delaying the inevitable transition to clean energy.
Real progress requires addressing the root of the problem: dependence on fossil fuels and the political power that oil markets wield over both economies and governments.
Trump’s claims may play well with voters frustrated by fluctuating costs, but experts agree that market cycles, refinery capacity, seasonal demand, and international supply agreements have far greater influence on prices than any one administration’s policies.
Connecting the Dots: Economic Policy, Corporate Power, and Environmental Justice
This discussion also intersects with broader issues of corporate influence and privatization, including the expanding power of private industries in sectors like energy, corrections, and infrastructure. Just as private prison operators have profited from incarceration, large oil and gas corporations profit from market volatility and political chaos—while working families shoulder the cost.
At Sustainable Action Now, our Politicshighlights how corporate interests shape policy to maximize profits at the expense of public welfare. The same principle applies in the energy sector, where corporate lobbying often drives short-sighted decisions that keep the U.S. tied to fossil fuels. Understanding this dynamic helps reveal why claims about “cheap gas” often hide a deeper truth about who benefits from these policies—and who doesn’t.
The Sustainable Path Forward
Rather than focusing on political claims or short-term fluctuations, the real conversation should center on how to build a resilient, sustainable energy economy. That means:
- Investing in renewable energy sources like solar, wind, and geothermal power.
- Modernizing infrastructure to support electric vehicles and clean transportation systems.
- Holding corporations accountable for environmental damage and price manipulation.
- Promoting transparency in how energy markets and policies are developed and regulated.
Lower gas prices might feel like a win in the moment, but they’re not a reliable indicator of long-term economic or environmental health. The real victory comes when we reduce our dependence on oil entirely—creating cleaner air, stable prices, and a more equitable economy that isn’t vulnerable to political spin or market instability.
Conclusion
Gas prices will always rise and fall with global conditions—but our response to those changes defines our future. The truth is that sustainability and affordability go hand in hand when we invest in renewable energy, support fair regulation, and move beyond the fossil fuel model that keeps consumers—and the planet—at risk.
Political claims about “who lowered gas prices” distract from the real issue: America’s need to transition to a sustainable, stable, and just energy system.
For more information on how economic policies, corporate influence, and justice reform intersect with sustainability, visit the Sustainable Action Now Private Prisons Initiative. The path to real progress begins with transparency, accountability, and a commitment to solutions that work for people—not politics.
