Washington — A routine House vote this week unexpectedly escalated into a broader confrontation over presidential war powers after Representative Ilhan Omar of Minnesota sharply criticized former President Donald J. Trump’s use of executive authority, accusing him of bypassing Congress in matters of military force.

Speaking on the House floor, Ms. Omar argued that actions taken by the Trump administration in the Western Hemisphere under the banner of counter-narcotics enforcement represented an erosion of constitutional limits. Without alleging a specific, newly disclosed military strike, she framed her remarks around what she described as a pattern of unilateral decision-making that blurred the line between law enforcement, covert operations and acts of war.

“Congress cannot allow any president to act as judge, jury and executioner,” Ms. Omar said, invoking language that quickly drew attention online and sharpened partisan divides in the chamber.

Her remarks circulated widely on social media within minutes, accompanied by clips and commentary that portrayed the speech as a direct accusation of illegal military action in Venezuela. Administration officials and defense analysts said there was no publicly acknowledged U.S. military strike against Venezuela during Mr. Trump’s tenure, cautioning that the speech should be understood as a critique of executive authority rather than a disclosure of new operations.

Still, the speech landed at a sensitive moment. Lawmakers were debating provisions related to foreign policy oversight and the scope of counter-narcotics operations, areas where the executive branch has historically exercised broad discretion. Ms. Omar’s intervention reframed the discussion, pulling long-running concerns about war powers back into the spotlight.

Supporters of her position argued that the speech underscored the need for Congress to reassert its constitutional role. They pointed to decades of military engagements initiated without formal declarations of war, often justified through broad authorizations or executive findings.

“Whether you agree with her framing or not, the question is legitimate,” said a constitutional law scholar at Georgetown University. “How far can presidents go before congressional authorization becomes meaningless?”

Critics responded forcefully. Republican lawmakers accused Ms. Omar of inflammatory rhetoric and of mischaracterizing U.S. actions abroad. Some argued that counter-narcotics operations, including surveillance, sanctions enforcement and cooperation with regional partners, fall squarely within existing legal authorities and do not constitute acts of war.

“There was no secret invasion,” said one senior Republican aide. “What we’re seeing is a political argument dressed up as a legal indictment.”

Behind the scenes, House leadership on both sides monitored the reaction closely. According to aides familiar with the deliberations, the speech complicated vote counting and messaging, particularly among members wary of being seen as endorsing either unchecked executive power or exaggerated claims about military action.

The exchange reflects a broader, unresolved tension in American governance. Since the passage of the 2001 and 2002 Authorizations for Use of Military Force, presidents of both parties have relied on expansive interpretations of executive authority to conduct operations far from traditional battlefields. Congress has periodically pushed back, but efforts to reclaim authority have often stalled.

Ms. Omar, a frequent critic of U.S. foreign interventions, has made war powers a central theme of her legislative work. Her speech echoed previous calls to repeal outdated authorizations and require clearer approval for overseas operations, particularly those that could escalate into broader conflict.

The Trump administration, while no longer in office, continues to shape these debates. During his presidency, Mr. Trump emphasized executive flexibility and often framed military and security actions as decisive leadership. His supporters argue that such latitude is necessary in a rapidly evolving threat environment.

The White House did not respond directly to Ms. Omar’s remarks, noting that the debate concerned past actions and legislative authority rather than current policy. Defense officials reiterated that U.S. operations in the region have focused on law enforcement cooperation and sanctions enforcement, not military strikes.

Online reaction followed predictable lines. Progressive commentators praised the speech as a necessary confrontation, while conservative voices accused Ms. Omar of fear-mongering. The intensity of the response underscored how questions of war and executive power remain potent, even in the absence of new military developments.

For lawmakers, the episode served as a reminder that procedural votes can quickly become symbolic battlegrounds. What began as a technical debate over oversight turned into a broader argument about constitutional balance, amplified by rhetoric and viral clips.

Whether the moment leads to legislative change remains uncertain. Previous attempts to rein in executive war powers have struggled to gain traction, often overshadowed by immediate security concerns or partisan calculation.

Yet analysts say the debate itself matters. “These moments don’t always change policy overnight,” said a former congressional counsel. “But they keep the issue alive, and over time that shapes how power is understood.”

As the House moves on to other business, the questions raised by Ms. Omar’s speech linger. How much authority should a president wield abroad without explicit approval? Where is the line between enforcement and warfare? And who decides when that line has been crossed?

For now, those questions remain contested — argued not only in committee rooms and court opinions, but in speeches that can, in a single moment, turn a routine vote into a national conversation.