The U.S. Senate on Wednesday declined to limit President Donald Trump’s military actions against Iran, as the conflict entered its fifth day. A resolution that would have required congressional approval for further strikes failed to pass, with nearly all Republicans and Senator John Fetterman, D-Pa., voting to block it.
Supporters of the resolution acknowledged the challenge given Republican control of Congress and widespread support for the war within the party. However, they argued the vote served as a crucial test of lawmakers’ willingness to uphold constitutional checks on presidential power, particularly given Trump’s reluctance to seek congressional authorization for the joint U.S.-Israeli military operation.
The House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on a similar measure Thursday, though its prospects are also considered slim. A complicating factor is the introduction of competing legislation by a small group of pro-Israel Democrats.
A companion resolution in the House, sponsored by Representatives Ro Khanna, D-Calif., and Thomas Massie, R-Ky., has limited Republican support, with only one other GOP member identified as a potential “yes” vote. Several Democrats also appear poised to oppose the Khanna-Massie resolution despite party leadership’s efforts to secure their support.
Representative Josh Gottheimer, D-N.J., a staunch supporter of Israel, has proposed an alternative resolution that would allow Trump 30 days to continue attacks, arguing it would avoid a “potentially precarious withdrawal.” Cavan Kharrazian, a policy advisor with Demand Progress, pointed out that this 30-day timeframe aligns with the duration Trump has suggested for the conflict, stating, “Any representative that is actually against the war, that’s the vehicle they should be voting for now, and not attempting to give Trump a blank check for 30 days.”
Senate Shutout
The Senate vote represented the latest attempt to restrain Trump’s foreign policy decisions through the War Powers Act of 1973. The resolution would have mandated congressional approval for continued military strikes, but, like previous attempts regarding actions in the Caribbean and Venezuela, it failed to achieve a simple majority.
Senator Rand Paul, R-Ky., was the sole Republican senator to support the measure. Several Republicans who have previously expressed skepticism toward foreign intervention appeared to have been influenced by Trump’s reaction in January, when he publicly criticized GOP senators who opposed his administration’s actions regarding Venezuela.
Debate in the Senate centered on the potential length of the conflict, with Democrats raising concerns about a prolonged engagement similar to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Republicans, however, suggested the operation would be limited in scope and duration.
Despite officials using the term “war,” Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., stated Wednesday that the current situation does not constitute a war requiring congressional approval, characterizing it as a “very specific, clear mission, Operation Epic Fury.” Senator Raphael Warnock, D-Ga., countered that Trump’s administration has offered inconsistent justifications for the military action.
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the purpose of the war powers resolution?
The resolution sought to force President Trump to seek congressional approval before continuing military strikes against Iran, relying on the War Powers Act of 1973.
Who voted against the resolution in the Senate?
Nearly all Republicans, along with Senator John Fetterman, D-Pa., voted against the resolution.
What is happening in the House of Representatives?
The House is set to vote on a similar resolution Thursday, but it faces long odds due to Republican control and competing legislation from some pro-Israel Democrats.
As the conflict continues to unfold, will Congress assert its constitutional authority to oversee military action, or will it continue to defer to the President’s judgment?