Senate Rejects War Powers Resolution That Would Force Trump to End Iran Strikes

The Republican-led Senate voted down a procedural measure intended to block President Donald Trump from ordering further military strikes on Iran without congressional approval—the first formal test of lawmakers’ willingness to rein in a widening conflict that the President began without their consent.

The measure failed in a 47-53 vote mostly along party lines late Wednesday afternoon, a day after lawmakers were briefed by the Trump Administration on its rationale behind the military action. It is now the eighth war powers resolution brought to the floor that has failed since last summer.

All Senate Democrats voted for the resolution except for Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman, who has argued that cutting off the President’s authority mid-campaign would send the wrong message. Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky joined the majority of Democrats as the lone Republican voting in favor of it.

The resolution, led by Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia, invoked the 1973 War Powers Resolution in an effort to force Congress to reclaim its constitutional authority to declare war. But Republicans, who control both chambers, have largely rallied behind the President’s decision to strike Iran even as Trump has not ruled out deploying U.S. ground troops. “We should let him finish the job,” Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said Tuesday, voicing support for a U.S.-Israeli air campaign that began five days ago and has already resulted in American casualties and the deaths of hundreds of others, including the country’s supreme leader Ali Khamenei.

It’s a similar story in the House, where another war powers resolution is expected to get a vote on Thursday. Republican Speaker Mike Johnson on Wednesday likened the measure to siding “with the enemy,” and has said he has the votes to defeat it. At least two House Republicans have said they plan to break with their party and vote for the resolution—Reps. Warren Davidson of Ohio and Thomas Massie of Kentucky.

“Is the President of the United States—regardless of the person holding the office—empowered to do whatever he wants?” Davidson said on the House floor Wednesday as he revealed his support for the resolution. “That’s not what our Constitution says.”

Even if both chambers were to approve the resolution, Trump was expected to veto it. Overriding a presidential veto requires two-thirds support in both chambers, and Congress has never overridden a presidential veto of a war powers resolution. That made Wednesday’s procedural vote in the Senate a largely symbolic rebuke of the President’s actions rather than a practical one, a test of whether any Republicans in the Senate were willing to buck party leadership to advance the measure. At least four Republicans were needed to join Democrats and Rand Paul for it to clear the chamber.

The vote came amid mounting frustration among Democrats who say Trump has increasingly sidelined Congress on matters of war. During Trump’s second term, the U.S. military has struck seven other countries without Trump seeking authorization from lawmakers, arguing that he has inherent constitutional authority as commander in chief and is operating within existing statutory limits.

The War Powers Resolution, passed in 1973 in the aftermath of the Vietnam War, was designed to check precisely that kind of unilateral action. It requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of introducing U.S. forces into hostilities and bars armed forces from remaining in such conflicts for more than 60 days—with a possible 30-day extension—without a declaration of war or specific authorization for the use of military force. It also allows any member of Congress to force a vote on a resolution directing the removal of U.S. forces.

For some lawmakers, the vote on a war powers resolution carried echoes of past moments when Congress went on record in matters of war. For example, the 2002 vote authorizing the invasion of Iraq was intensely scrutinized in the years that followed, as the conflict dragged on and its underlying intelligence was challenged. Lawmakers who supported that authorization were repeatedly pressed to defend their positions in later campaigns, particularly when seeking higher office.

Trump did send a legally required notification letter to Congress on Monday, days after ordering sweeping airstrikes on Iranian targets. But in it, he described the mission as advancing national interests and eliminating Iran as a global threat—language that differed from the Administration’s public claims that the strikes were necessary to head off an imminent danger to American troops and allies in the region.

That shifting rationale has deepened skepticism among Democrats, many of whom emerged from classified briefings on Tuesday saying they were unconvinced that the Administration had demonstrated an immediate threat that justified bypassing Congress.

“I am truly worried about mission creep,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said after Tuesday’s briefing, calling the session “very unsatisfying” and criticizing what he described as different explanations offered on different days.

Lawmakers said Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth warned in the briefing that operations could intensify in the coming days. At one point, Rubio publicly suggested the strikes were prompted by Israel’s plans to attack Iran and concerns that American forces could face retaliation. Later, he and others emphasized Iran’s ballistic missile development as an imminent and serious threat. In other settings, the President has framed the mission more broadly as an effort to “neutralize Iran’s malign activities.”

Read More: Rubio’s Rationale on Iran Strikes Gets Messier, as Congress Demands Answers

"I am more fearful than ever, after this briefing, that we may be putting boots on the ground,” said Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, after Tuesday’s classified briefing. 

Republicans, by contrast, largely defended the President’s authority. Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri said he believed the Trump Administration was operating within the 60-day window permitted under the statute and would vote against the resolution. But he and others signaled that their support might waver if the operation expanded or dragged on, particularly if American ground forces were sent into Iran.

In the House, Democratic Reps. Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey, Jared Moskowitz of Florida, and Greg Landsman of Ohio have indicated they will oppose the resolution but would back a more limited alternative that would give the Administration 30 days to wind down operations before seeking authorization.

Ahead of the vote, Kaine, who spearheaded the resolution, argued that forcing lawmakers to go on record is itself a step toward restoring Congress’s war-making authority. “If you don’t have the guts to vote ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ on a war vote,” Kaine said this week, “how dare you send our sons and daughters into war where they risk their lives?”