The U.S. Senate blocked a war powers resolution that would have required President Trump to seek congressional approval for continuing military strikes against Iran. The vote failed largely along party lines, with nearly all Republicans and one Democratic senator, John Fetterman, opposing the measure.
A companion resolution faces a similarly difficult vote in the House of Representatives, where it is opposed by some pro-Israel Democrats who have introduced alternative legislation. This alternative would grant the President a 30-day window to continue operations, a timeframe advocates of the stricter resolution criticize as granting a "blank check."
The debate centers on congressional war powers and the potential for a prolonged conflict, with Democrats warning of endless war and Republicans supporting the campaign to counter Iranian threats.
Main Topics: U.S. Congressional war powers; Iran conflict; partisan political divisions; legislative procedures.
The U.S. Senate declined an opportunity to rein in President Donald Trump’s unauthorized war on Iran in a vote Wednesday as the conflict’s toll mounted.
Nearly all Republicans were joined by Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., in blocking a resolution that would have forced Trump to seek congressional approval for further strikes.
Advocates of the measure and a companion in the House, known as war powers resolutions, acknowledged they were uphill battles given the near-unanimous support for the war among the Republicans who control Congress. They said the votes were still important as a test for lawmakers given Trump’s opposition to seeking congressional approval for the joint Israeli–American war on Iran.
The House of Representatives is set to vote on another measure Thursday that also faces long odds, in part because a small group of pro-Israel Democrats have introduced competing legislation.
The companion resolution to the Senate’s was sponsored by Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., and Thomas Massie, R-Ky. Besides Massie, however, only one other Republican has been identified as a potential yes vote for the resolution.
Several Democrats seem set oppose the resolution despite party leadership’s decision to whip votes on it.
One is Rep. Josh Gottheimer, D-N.J., a staunch supporter of Israel who has offered a resolution of his own that would allow Trump 30 days to continue attacks. Gottheimer said in a statement that his measure would allow Trump to avoid a “potentially precarious withdrawal.”
An advocate backing the Khanna–Massie resolution noted that the 30-day time frame lines up with how long Trump has suggested the conflict might last.
“There is already a vote this week on Khanna–Massie. 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,” Cavan Kharrazian, a senior policy adviser at the progressive group Demand Progress, said Tuesday. “We have already seen in the past four days the death and destruction and escalation with this war. I can’t even imagine what things look like in 30 days.”
Senate Shutout
The war powers resolution in the Senate was the latest attempt to check Trump’s growing appetite for foreign conflict. Relying on the War Powers Act of 1973, the resolution would have forced Trump to seek congressional approval to continue strikes.
As with previous resolutions focused on boat strikes in the Caribbean and Trump’s war on Venezuela, however, it fell short of obtaining the simple majority it needed despite support from Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.
Fetterman defected from the rest of the Democratic caucus to oppose the measure; he was also the only Democrat to vote against a war powers resolution to block Trump’s attacks on boats in the Caribbean and one to impose restrictions after last summer’s attacks on Iran.
Paul was the only Republican senator to vote for Wednesday’s war powers bill. Republicans who have expressed skepticism of foreign intervention in the past seemed to learn a lesson from January, when Trump lashed out against GOP senators who defected from the administration on a Venezuela war powers resolution.
Much of the debate on the Senate floor Wednesday centered on whether the conflict will be over relatively soon, as Trump has sometimes suggested. Democrats raised the specter of the conflict spiraling out for years, in the mold of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
“The only way that you will be able to destroy their capacity to make missiles and drones is to be permanently running jets overhead and constantly bombing the new sites that the hard-line regime sets up. That’s endless war. That’s trillions of dollars,” said Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn.
Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., pushed back against that argument in his floor remarks.
“It’s not an aimless exercise in the Middle East. This is a measured campaign to eliminate the ayatollah’s threat. It may take time to finish. We’re not going to put a time limit on it. That does not make it endless,” he said.
In a show of force meant to convey the gravity of the moment, Democrats packed the chamber during the vote count, while members of the Republican caucus trickled in and left.
“Not at War Right Now”
Even as Wicker sought to downplay the prospect of an endless conflict, Trump and top administration officials were sending mixed messages. Trump has ruled out the idea of seeking congressional approval despite the potential for a long war.
That did not bother House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., who said at a press conference Wednesday that the conflict does not meet the definition of a war that would trigger the Constitution’s requirement for congressional approval.
“We’re not at war right now. We’re four days into a very specific, clear mission, Operation Epic Fury,” he said.
Sen. Raphael Warnock, D-Ga., noted that officials up to Trump himself have used the word “war.”
“And yet he refused to come before Congress as the Constitution demands and make his case for war. And after yesterday’s briefing, I think I know why,” Warnock said, referring to a Tuesday briefing from Secretary of War Pete Hegseth and others. “It is exceedingly difficult to explain your rationale when it is not clear in your own head — when it changes every day.”
IT’S EVEN WORSE THAN WE THOUGHT.
What we’re seeing right now from Donald Trump is a full-on authoritarian takeover of the U.S. government.
This is not hyperbole.
Court orders are being ignored. MAGA loyalists have been put in charge of the military and federal law enforcement agencies. The Department of Government Efficiency has stripped Congress of its power of the purse. News outlets that challenge Trump have been banished or put under investigation.
Yet far too many are still covering Trump’s assault on democracy like politics as usual, with flattering headlines describing Trump as “unconventional,” “testing the boundaries,” and “aggressively flexing power.”
The Intercept has long covered authoritarian governments, billionaire oligarchs, and backsliding democracies around the world. We understand the challenge we face in Trump and the vital importance of press freedom in defending democracy.
We’re independent of corporate interests. Will you help us?
IT’S BEEN A DEVASTATING year for journalism — the worst in modern U.S. history.
We have a president with utter contempt for truth aggressively using the government’s full powers to dismantle the free press. Corporate news outlets have cowered, becoming accessories in Trump’s project to create a post-truth America. Right-wing billionaires have pounced, buying up media organizations and rebuilding the information environment to their liking.
In this most perilous moment for democracy, The Intercept is fighting back. But to do so effectively, we need to grow.
That’s where you come in. Will you help us expand our reporting capacity in time to hit the ground running in 2026?
We’re independent of corporate interests. Will you help us?
I’M BEN MUESSIG, The Intercept’s editor-in-chief. It’s been a devastating year for journalism — the worst in modern U.S. history.
We have a president with utter contempt for truth aggressively using the government’s full powers to dismantle the free press. Corporate news outlets have cowered, becoming accessories in Trump’s project to create a post-truth America. Right-wing billionaires have pounced, buying up media organizations and rebuilding the information environment to their liking.
In this most perilous moment for democracy, The Intercept is fighting back. But to do so effectively, we need to grow.
That’s where you come in. Will you help us expand our reporting capacity in time to hit the ground running in 2026?
We’re independent of corporate interests. Will you help us?
Latest Stories
License to Kill
U.S. Military Joins Drug War in Ecuador: “It Wasn’t Going to Be Just Boat Strikes Forever”
Two government officials told The Intercept that the joint U.S.–Ecuador military action won’t just be a one-off raid.
Midterms 2026
Dem Candidate for Rep. Eric Swalwell’s Seat Donated to Far-Right Republicans — Including Laura Loomer
Rakhi Israni, whose House primary campaign stunned observers with an early fundraising haul, has ties to Hindu nationalist political groups.
Israel’s War on Gaza
Trump’s Iran War Is Dividing Republicans. Pro-Palestine Groups Want Democrats to Exploit the Rifts.
A pro-Palestine group launched the first of $2 million in ad buys aiming to exploit Republican rifts over Israel. They hope Democrats will take note.
Meridiano
