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.
