Chuck Hagel is a former secretary of defense and a former Republican senator from Nebraska. He also served in the Vietnam War as an infantry squad leader for the 9th Infantry Division alongside his brother, Tom Hagel, in 1968. 

On Jan. 3, U.S. troops extracted Venezuela’s President Nicolás Maduro and his wife from a fortified compound — an action that, in traditional international law, would be understood as an act of war. The United States has also targeted maritime vessels, imposed a de facto blockade and seized Venezuelan state assets. Each of these steps carries the potential to escalate into a sustained armed conflict. Yet these actions all occurred without a vote of authorization from Congress, the only branch empowered by the Constitution to declare war.

From Venezuela to Greenland, American foreign policy currently feels as though it turns moment to moment on social media posts or leaked messages to foreign leaders. But the Constitution did not vest the power to wage war or reshape foreign policy in any single individual. It deliberately divided that authority and an essential role in guiding the nation’s actions abroad. At a time when the president acting alone has become increasingly normalized, it is worth pausing to recognize those in Congress who are working to restore the balance the framers intended.

Sen. Susan Collins has done precisely that. Through her support for war powers resolutions concerning Venezuela and her clear-eyed comments on Greenland and America’s relationships with allies, she has reaffirmed a fundamental principle: Congress is not an afterthought in foreign policy. It is a co-equal branch of government with constitutional responsibilities that cannot be delegated or ignored.

This is not a partisan point, but a constitutional one. And in an era when institutional norms are strained at home and abroad, Collins’ example deserves both recognition and emulation.

By supporting this resolution to require Congress to approve any sustained U.S. military involvement in Venezuela, Collins has emphasized that “the War Powers Act and Congress’ role” are directly implicated. It is a continuation of her consistent advocacy for the reassertion of the legislative branch’s war powers authorities: objecting to former President Barack Obama’s decision to enter Libya in 2011, and supporting a motion to proceed to consideration of the revised war powers resolution introduced by Sen. Tim Kaine, D-VA, in 2020. 

Her position reflects a straightforward reading of the Constitution and the war powers framework Congress has developed over decades. Decisions about war and peace should not be made by a single person without debate or clear authorization.

Collins’ stance is not a rejection of the necessary use of force. Rather, it is a reminder that democratic legitimacy and strategic clarity depend on Congress playing its constitutional role. When lawmakers are excluded, objectives become ambiguous, public support erodes and conflicts drift without clear endpoints.

I have seen the cost of this dynamic from many sides — first, as a soldier in the Vietnam War, then as a Republican senator voting on matters of war and peace, and finally, as secretary of defense responsible for carrying out those decisions. Public servants — whether they be soldiers or members of Congress — take an oath to uphold the Constitution. The system only works when they take this oath seriously. 

More recently, as renewed U.S. threats and diplomatic pressure toward Greenland reverberated across NATO and the Arctic, Collins has used her position as the chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee to call incursions into Greenland “completely inappropriate” without congressional approval. That may sound elementary, but it is worth restating when impulsive and unilateral declarations increasingly drive foreign policy signals.

This creates uncertainty for our allies and undermines much of the rules-based international order we have dedicated ourselves to for 80 years. This international order has been a centerpiece of American power and prosperity. Through our partnerships — and access to bases overseas — we can project power, sell American products and grow our economy, resulting in more jobs at home. 

For Maine, this is not an abstract concern. Stability in the North Atlantic, allied trust and predictable U.S. leadership are essential to regional security, economic development and the well-being of Maine’s communities. Allies and adversaries alike are watching U.S. foreign policy oscillate under increasingly unilateral executive control. A constitutional process that includes Congress provides continuity, legitimacy and predictability — qualities a unilateral executive cannot deliver.

Although this moment feels particularly volatile, the underlying issue traces back much further than one senator or one administration. Over many years, under both parties, Congress has allowed its role in authorizing military action to diminish. Presidents of both parties have relied on expansive interpretations of their authority, and Congress has avoided difficult votes. This pattern has shifted responsibility away from the people’s elected representatives in Congress toward the executive, contrary to the structure the framers designed.

Challenging the executive branch carries real risks for Congress, especially in today’s polarized environment. However, when legislators avoid difficult votes or public disagreement, constitutional checks and balances weaken not because the law has changed, but because political incentives discourage their use.

Reasserting Congress’ role does not prevent the United States from acting when necessary. It ensures that such action is grounded in law, public debate and shared responsibility. That framework strengthens American credibility, reduces volatility and provides clearer guidance to the men and women who serve in uniform.

Collins’ votes and statements on war powers and foreign policy underscore that Congress still has the capacity — and the obligation — to exercise its constitutional authority. These actions show courage and are what she was elected for. Other lawmakers should take note. The future of our constitutional democracy, and the future of the rules based order around the world, depends on this type of leadership.