Congressional Republicans are mostly standing behind President Trump as he continues his fight to prevent Iran from ever obtaining a nuclear weapon.
Democrats, nearly universally opposed to what they call a “war of choice,” continue to press Republicans on the issue by forcing votes on war powers resolutions to mandate an end to hostilities against Iran unless the president obtains congressional approval.
However, they did not pick up any new Republican votes in the House on Thursday, and a Senate resolution failed 47-49, with only one Republican — Sen. Susan M. Collins of Maine — crossing the aisle.
Sen. Tim Sheehy, Montana Republican and a former Navy SEAL, said the U.S. must finish the war. He said Iran started the war 47 years ago when “a radical, lunatic band of terrorists” took over the nation and started wreaking havoc around the globe.
“Their attacks have gone unanswered for half a century,” he said. “It’s time to fix this problem and make sure another generation of Americans does not have to fight this murderous, savage adversary.”
Democrats said the votes are not just about ending the war but also about asserting Congress’ authority.
The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, but Mr. Trump has not asked for authorization for the use of military force against Iran.
“There’s no good way out of a bad war, but … when you’re digging yourself a hole, the first thing you should do is stop digging,” said Sen. Chris Van Hollen, Maryland Democrat, who led the war powers vote.
“Let us stop pretending that Congress has no role to play while American service members remain in harm’s way,” he said.
Mr. Van Hollen’s resolution failed to advance.
House Democrats’ war powers resolution passed by a 214-208 vote with the support of four Republicans who had voted for a similar measure last month.
In June, both chambers of Congress passed war powers resolutions — the House a concurrent resolution, the Senate a joint resolution — each directing Mr. Trump to end the war. The Senate, however, reversed course on a follow-up resolution the following day after President Trump criticized the initial vote. Mr. Trump did not act on the original measure.
“My view is so long as the administration continues to ignore the law and the Constitution and the will of the people, that we have to force as many votes as possible to hold folks accountable who are capitulating to this administration,” Rep. Jason Crow, Colorado Democrat and a former Army Ranger, told The Washington Times.
The administration said the House concurrent resolution did not carry the force of law because concurrent resolutions do not require the president’s signature.
The Senate voted separately on a joint resolution, which would require presidential action. The four House Republicans supporting that measure were Reps. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, Tom Barrett of Michigan, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania and Warren Davidson of Ohio.
They said the administration needs congressional approval to continue hostilities against Iran, because the conflict is long past a 60-day deadline set by the War Powers Act to obtain authorization for use of military force.
“Only Congress has the authority to authorize military action in Iran,” Mr. Barrett said in a statement. “I remain ready to work with anyone to eliminate hostile threats to our nation without getting us into another endless war.”
On Thursday, a coalition of 30 left-leaning and nonpartisan civil society groups sent a letter urging Congress to enforce the June resolution through litigation and by withholding funding for the unauthorized conflict.
Rep. Pramila Jayapal, Washington Democrat who led the latest House war powers resolution, said litigation is a potential path and “people are thinking through what that looks like.”
In the meantime, Republicans voting against ending the war will have “to answer to their constituents about why they would allow this to continue,” she told The Times.
“We really appreciate the people who are taking these votes out of conscience and constitutional clarity, but there are still many that aren’t,” Ms. Jayapal said.
Some Republicans who are not entirely comfortable with the war have dismissed the Democratic-led war powers votes as purely political.
Mr. Trump has made that argument as well and expressed frustration with those in his party who have sided with Democrats.
He was so irate over the Senate passage of the war powers resolution last month that he got into a heated exchange with Sen. Bill Cassidy, Louisiana Republican, over the issue during a private Republican lunch.
Mr. Cassidy supported the Senate resolution in June, saying the administration had failed to answer his questions. However, he changed his vote when the Senate held a redo vote later in the week to appease Mr. Trump, citing a briefing he received from Vice President J.D. Vance and Special Envoy Steve Witkoff.
Mr. Cassidy said he also spoke with Mr. Witkoff ahead of the vote Thursday and that, although he does not believe the war is winding down, he said it would be irresponsible to pull troops right now.
“The nature of this particular war powers resolution was a little preemptive,” he said. “I do think Congress should weigh in, but I also don’t think it’s profitable for us to leave tomorrow.”
Mr. Cassidy and a few Republicans are interested in Congress weighing in with a formal authorization for the use of military force that can set limitations on the scope of the war and require the administration to provide regular updates to lawmakers.
“Now, particularly with the Houthis threatening the same thing in the Red Sea that we have in the Strait of Hormuz, this could spiral out of control,” said Sen. Thom Tillis, North Carolina Republican. “We need to support the president. You do that by legitimizing it with an AUMF.”
In May, Mr. Barrett introduced a military force authorization with limitations, including a prohibition on boots on the ground in Iran. That measure, which was designed to sunset on July 30, attracted one Republican co-sponsor: retiring Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska.
House Speaker Mike Johnson, Louisiana Republican, was asked about the need for a military force authorization Tuesday, given the recent escalations in strikes.
“I don’t think an AUMF is in order right now,” he said. “The administration is working very hard, the commander in chief and the whole Department of War — they’re working very hard to bring this to a resolution.”
Contact the author
Please read our comment policy before commenting.