The Senate voted Wednesday to reject a resolution that would have blocked President Donald Trump from ordering additional military strikes on Iran. The measure sought to halt the conflict, which Trump initiated without receiving authorization from Congress.
Democratic senators — joined by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) — pushed for a vote on the war powers resolution despite opposition from most Republicans, who hold control of the Senate. Democrats urged several Republican lawmakers to cross party lines in an effort to end the military action and reaffirm Congress’s constitutional authority over declarations of war.
“This essentially is the vote whether to go to war or not,” Paul told reporters.
Paul ultimately stood as the only Republican who voted in favor of advancing the resolution. The measure failed on a procedural vote by a margin of 47–53. One Democrat, Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, voted against the resolution.
The outcome marked another setback in Democrats’ efforts to prevent Trump from conducting military strikes without congressional approval. Since Trump returned to office, lawmakers have attempted to use the War Powers Resolution repeatedly, forcing votes on eight separate measures in both the House and Senate. These votes were aimed at restricting potential military actions against Venezuela, Iran, and vessels near Latin America suspected of involvement in drug smuggling. Each attempt has failed.
Contents
Republicans Defend the Decision to Continue Military Action
Many Republicans in Congress have expressed support for Trump’s decision to carry out strikes against Iran, although some have acknowledged concerns about the level of congressional involvement in the process.
“Yes, I wish I would have been consulted,” Sen. John Curtis (R-Utah) said in a statement. “I wish my vote would have been asked for before this. But the President did act within his legal bounds to do what he has done.”
Curtis and other Republican lawmakers argued that ordering a withdrawal of U.S. forces only days after the conflict began could send an unfavorable signal. Sen. Todd Young (R-Indiana) said he believed Congress should have taken earlier steps to assert its authority before military action began.
“We should’ve been holding hearings and asking probing questions and making the case to get a greater measure of unity around this operation on the front end,” Young told reporters ahead of the vote. “But here we are. We’re at war.”
Democrats responded by stating that congressional action could still stop a conflict that lawmakers had not authorized.
“We must act to stop Trump’s belligerence,” Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-New York) said on the Senate floor before the vote. “The American people will be watching how senators vote. History will judge this chamber for how we act.”
Public Opinion and Comparisons to Past Conflicts
Democratic lawmakers have argued that the public does not want the United States involved in another conflict in the Middle East. Early polling, however, has presented a mixed picture of public opinion.
A CNN poll reported that 59 percent of Americans disapproved of the decision to strike Iran, while 41 percent approved. In contrast, a Fox News poll showed registered voters evenly divided, with 50 percent approving and 50 percent disapproving. Other surveys, including a Washington Post flash poll, produced results that fell between those two findings.
Some Democrats have drawn comparisons between Trump’s military action against Iran and the Iraq War. In 2003, President George W. Bush sought and obtained authorization from Congress before the United States invaded Iraq. Trump, by contrast, did not request authorization from Congress prior to ordering strikes against Iran. Democratic lawmakers warned that failing to address the issue could establish a precedent for future presidential military decisions.
“If we vest the sole power to make war in the president of the United States, the sole decision to bring a country into war with the president of the United States, there is no check on the use of that authority, there is no check on the abuse of that authority,” Sen. Adam Schiff (D-California) said on the Senate floor before the vote. Schiff introduced the resolution alongside Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Virginia), Paul, and Schumer.
Similar Vote Expected in the House
The House of Representatives is scheduled to vote Thursday on a comparable war powers resolution. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana) indicated that he believes there is sufficient support to defeat the measure.
“The idea that we would take the ability of our commander in chief … to finish this job is a frightening prospect to me,” Johnson told reporters. “It’s dangerous, and I am certainly hopeful — and I believe we do — have the votes to put it down.”
The War Powers Resolution was originally passed by Congress in 1973 following the Vietnam War. The law allows a single lawmaker to force a vote aimed at withdrawing U.S. forces from a conflict or blocking military strikes when hostilities appear imminent.
Even if Congress were to approve such a measure, the resolution would still face significant hurdles. The president could veto it, and overriding a veto would require a two-thirds majority in both the House and the Senate. No war powers resolution has ever successfully overridden a presidential veto.
Kaine and Paul waited several weeks before triggering the vote as U.S. forces were being positioned near Iran, a period during which negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program were still underway. Kaine said he believed holding the vote before any military strikes occurred would have increased its chances of passing.
However, timing remained a challenge. At least two House Democrats indicated they would oppose the measure if a vote occurred while diplomatic negotiations were still ongoing, making it difficult for Democrats to determine when to proceed.
Debate Over Congressional Authority and Funding
Before Wednesday’s vote, Kaine said additional attempts could follow if the resolution failed. He indicated that lawmakers would continue to pursue ways to end the conflict.
The votes in the House and Senate this week are “the first effort of all Congress going on the record about this, but I can assure you it’s not going to be the last,” Kaine told reporters.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) argued before the vote that the War Powers Resolution of 1973 is unconstitutional. He also suggested that Congress has another way to bring an end to the conflict by refusing to approve funding for it if the administration seeks additional resources.
“If you want to stop this war, say we will not pay for it,” Graham said on the Senate floor. “I would not agree with you, but at least it would be constitutional.”
Under the 1973 law, a president is also required to withdraw U.S. forces after 60 days — or 90 days if an extension is requested — unless Congress declares war or formally authorizes military force.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-South Dakota) said he believes the Trump administration already possesses the authority needed to continue the Iran campaign, even if it extends beyond 90 days.
“I think the president has the authority that he needs to conduct the activities, the operations that are currently underway there,” Thune told reporters.
Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Missouri), however, said he believes congressional authorization would likely be required if ground troops were deployed in Iran, an option the administration has not ruled out.
“Most American presidents have said, ‘Listen, if I’m going to commit ground troops into combat, that constitutes war in the constitutional sense and would require some sort of authorization,’” Hawley told reporters. “I think that’s a pretty tried-and-tested line.”
Senate Vote Keeps Iran War Debate Unresolved
The Senate’s rejection of the resolution means the conflict with Iran will continue without new restrictions from Congress at this time. The vote highlighted ongoing disagreements in Washington about the balance of power between the executive branch and Congress when it comes to initiating and continuing military operations.
Lawmakers from both parties indicated that the debate over the war and the limits of presidential authority could continue in the coming weeks, particularly if additional funding requests or new military decisions arise.
