SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
war powers resolution
'We Must Cut Off Funding': House Dem Readies Legal Action and New Bill to Halt Trump's Iran War
Rep. John Larson said members of Congress must "take every available legal action to end it before more Americans are killed."
Jul 21, 2026
Democratic Rep. John Larson said late Monday that he is preparing legal action against the Trump administration and a new bill to cut off funding for the US war on Iran, which was launched without congressional authorization nearly five months ago and has intensified in recent days following the collapse of a ceasefire deal.
Larson (D-Conn.) said he would file a lawsuit "challenging the administration’s continued prosecution of the war without congressional approval," pointing to President Donald Trump's cynical attempt to evade limits imposed by the War Powers Act of 1973.
"The administration’s claim that recent developments constitute a new conflict and restart what they consider to be a 60-day deadline under the War Powers Resolution is nothing more than a legally baseless attempt to evade Congress and circumvent the Constitution," Larson's office said in a press release.
The Connecticut Democrat, who has called for Trump's impeachment over the illegal war, said he would also introduce legislation aimed at prohibiting any additional federal funding for unauthorized attacks on Iran as the White House and congressional Republicans seek tens of billions more for the war—and as the Trump administration reportedly plans to widen its assault, potentially involving ground troops.
“While Speaker Mike Johnson and House Republicans continue to do Trump’s bidding instead of defending Congress' constitutional authority, more American servicemembers are paying the price with their lives," Larson said in a statement. "Congress cannot continue to sit on its hands. We must cut off funding for this illegal war and take every available legal action to end it before more Americans are killed."
Last month, the House and Senate—both controlled by Republicans—passed a resolution calling on Trump to remove US forces from conflict with Iran, but the measure lacked the force of law. The president has since reimposed a naval blockade on Iran and resumed a massive bombing campaign that, since its inception in late February, has killed thousands, wreaked havoc on the global economy, and driven up costs for Americans.
With Trump ignoring congressional war powers efforts, Democrats and advocacy organizations committed to stopping the war on Iran have shifted their focus to blocking military funding to exert pressure on Republicans and the Trump administration. Last week, Senate Democrats blocked the annual National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) over the Iran war.
The House is expected to begin voting on its version of the NDAA as soon as Wednesday. Republicans on the House Rules Committee rejected a proposed Democratic amendment last week that would have barred future Pentagon funds from being used for the war on Iran.
"NOBODY in Congress that passed the historic Iran War Powers Resolution should vote to give ONE CENT to Trump and Hegseth's Pentagon without a signed Iran peace deal," the advocacy group Just Foreign Policy wrote in a social media post late Monday.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'No to War': Iranian Civil Society Issues Call for Peace as US Assault Intensifies
"We believe that the overwhelming majority of the Iranian people desire peace and the right to live a dignified life."
Jul 20, 2026
As the US ramps up its assault against Iran with daily bombings and threatens a full ground invasion, hundreds of public figures from across Iranian civil society issued an urgent call for peace on Sunday.
Two hundred sixty-eight prominent Iranians—including political activists, academics, former members of Parliament, religious figures, labor leaders, and others—signed a joint declaration calling for a "complete and unconditional end of war, and the cessation of all threats, incitement to hatred, and warmongering."
"We believe that the overwhelming majority of the Iranian people desire peace and the right to live a dignified life," the statement says. "Therefore, since no decision should be imposed upon the country against the will of its people... we firmly remind all governments, military forces involved in the ongoing conflicts in the Middle East, and all members of the international community that violating this fundamental right of the Iranian people is a grave injustice against a nation that does not want war and stands for peace."
"Despite all our differences, we raise our collective voice to say 'No to War,'" the letter continued. "We sincerely call upon all our fellow Iranians—regardless of gender, political or ideological beliefs, religion, ethnicity, or any other distinction—to join this call and strengthen its echo by adding their voices."
The declaration ends with a quote from the 13th-century Persian poet Saadi Shirazi: "Even if you possess the strength of an elephant or the claws of a lion, to me, peace is still better than war."
The National Iranian American Council (NIAC) emphasized the "breadth of the signatories," which span large swaths of political opinion and reflect "a rare convergence across Iran’s deeply fragmented political landscape."
Among the signatories are Kak Hassan Amini, a Sunni activist; Faezeh Hashemi, a former member of Iran's Parliament and the daughter of former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani; teachers' labor rights activist Maryam Kabiri; former Parliament members Elaheh Koulaei and Parvaneh Salahshouri; and former Central Bank Gov. Valiollah Seif.
The letter comes as the US has conducted nine consecutive nights of bombings following a short-lived truce in June. Earlier strikes targeted areas around the Strait of Hormuz—which Iran again sealed off as June's memorandum of understanding collapsed.
In recent days, US strikes have begun to creep inland. In addition to military infrastructure, the US has attacked facilities relied upon by civilians, including bridges, roads, a train station, an airport, and energy infrastructure.
In retaliation for strikes that killed two US service members in Jordan over the weekend, the US launched another round of strikes on Monday that struck the construction site of a planned nuclear power plant, according to Iran's atomic energy agency.
Iranian authorities have said that at least 50 people have been killed and at least 517 wounded in the latest round of US strikes. At least 3,500 Iranians have been killed since the US and Israel attacked Iran in late February, including more than 1,700 confirmed civilians, according to the US-based Human Rights Activists News Agency (HRANA).
At least 17 US troops have been killed since the war began, with Iran's strikes in Jordan killing 25-year-old 1st Lt. James Feehan and 19-year-old Pvt. Isabella Gonzales over the weekend. Another soldier has also gone missing and has not yet been publicly identified.
President Donald Trump vowed in a social media post on Monday that "every time Iran kills an American Soldier” going forward “they will pay for that killing many times over.”
With Iran's closure of the Strait of Hormuz once again causing global oil prices to soar, the Trump administration is reportedly mulling a full-scale ground invasion of Kharg Island and areas of coastline near the strait, which experts have warned would require hundreds of thousands of American troops and likely lead to many more casualties.
Democrats in Congress responded to the deaths of two more US soldiers by renewing calls to end the conflict.
"These brave troops gave their lives in service to our nation," said Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.). "How many more must die for Trump’s war of choice?"
Trump's escalations come despite the US House of Representatives and Senate passing a war powers resolution last month that directed him to withdraw troops from hostilities with Iran unless Congress authorizes them.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Not How It Works': Critics Slam Trump Bid to Restart Legal Clock on Illegal Iran War
"The War Powers Resolution doesn’t give the president a 'free' 60 days—and the Constitution certainly doesn’t either," said one conservative critic.
Jul 13, 2026
Critics from both sides of the political aisle on Monday denounced President Donald Trump's effort to construct a facade of legality for the illegal US-Israeli war of choice on Iran by notifying Congress of renewed military strikes on the Mideast nation.
Trump claimed in a letter to members of Congress that, on July 7, he ordered "defensive strikes against targets within Iran, including missile launch sites, air defenses, military maritime assets, military support infrastructure, and command and control capabilities."
"These strikes are limited, measured, planned, and executed in a manner designed to minimize civilian casualties," wrote Trump, whose war has killed more than 3,400 people—hundreds of them children—and wounded over 26,500 others since February 28, according to Iran's Ministry of Health.
"I am providing this report as part of my efforts to keep the Congress fully informed, consistent with the War Powers Resolution," the president added.
The War Powers Resolution of 1973—also known as the War Powers Act—requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing troops to military action and limit such action to 60 days, with a 30-day withdrawal period, unless lawmakers declare war or issue an authorization for the use of military force.
Elected Democrats and legal experts have rejected Trump's argument that the negotiated ceasefire he's now abandoned resets the War Powers Resolution's 60-day limit; absent congressional authorization, the statutory clock generally starts from the first US strike and continues uninterrupted until military action ends.
Asked Monday by CNN's Kaitlan Collins if this is "just the new normal for the American people," Trump—who has called himself the "peace president"—replied, "No, well, you know, we were in Vietnam for 19 years; we're [in Iran] for four months."
Trump said during the same press conference that "we're doing another very major attack tonight" in Iran.
US Central Command (CENTCOM) said Monday that US forces "began launching the third consecutive night of strikes against Iran, at the Commander in Chief's direction."
"These strikes will continue imposing a heavy cost on Iranian forces and degrade their ability to attack innocent civilians and commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz," CENTCOM added.
Responding to the president's letter, former libertarian Congressman Justin Amash (R-Mich.) said on social media: "This is not how it works. The War Powers Resolution doesn’t give the president a 'free' 60 days—and the Constitution certainly doesn’t either. Regardless, we’re talking about a single war. You don’t get to pause it and then pretend it’s a different war."
Congresswoman Teresa Leger Fernández (D-NM) also took to social media, writing: "Trump said the war with Iran was over. He lied."
"Now he is telling Congress the United States is at war again—and claiming another 60 days to wage it without congressional approval," she added. "He cannot end a war on paper to dodge the law, then restart the clock when it suits him. No more lies. No more endless wars."
Aaron Fritschner, Rep. Don Beyer's (D-Va.) deputy chief of staff, said that Trump administration officials "may think the Congress and citizenry are extremely stupid, and they are mistaken," adding that the Iran War "is obviously illegal."
Foreign policy journalist Laura Rozen dragged what she described as "a forever war in 60-day increments."
Politico House leadership reporter Riley Rogerson asked House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) whether Democrats are planning on pursuing another war powers resolution like the one passed last month by both chambers of Congress aimed at blocking Trump's ability to keep attacking Iran.
"We have advanced multiple war powers resolutions up until this point, and we will continue to use every legislative tool available to end Donald Trump and the Republican reckless and costly war of choice in Iran," Jeffries replied.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'End This War': Progressives in Congress Blast Trump's Return to Bombing Iran
"Restarting his reckless war with Iran won't make America stronger," said Sen. Bernie Sanders. "It will cost more lives and waste more taxpayer dollars."
Jul 08, 2026
Key progressives in Congress took aim at President Donald Trump on Wednesday amid his second straight night of attacks on Iran.
US Central Command (CENTCOM) first said Tuesday that its forces had "begun launching a series of powerful strikes against Iran," in response to attacks on commercial ships in the Strait of Hormuz. Then, Trump said Wednesday that the ceasefire established under the memorandum of understanding (MOU) signed last month was "over" and "I don't want to deal with" the Iranians.
As oil prices soared, CENTCOM announced later Wednesday that "at the direction of the commander in chief, US Central Command forces have started conducting additional strikes against Iran to further degrade their ability to threaten freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz. The United States is holding Iran accountable for recent unjustified aggression against commercial shipping and civilian crews freely navigating a vital international waterway."
Minutes later, progressive Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) declared: "After getting the United States into a war based on lies, Trump has now declared the ceasefire with Iran 'over' after less than a month. Restarting his reckless war with Iran won't make America stronger. It will cost more lives and waste more taxpayer dollars. END THIS WAR."
Meanwhile, Trump shared a series of videos of the bombings across Iran on his Truth Social platform Wednesday evening.
The National Iranian American Council (NIAC) said in a statement that "the Trump administration is steering the United States back toward an illegal and disastrous war with Iran. Rather than implementing the agreement it negotiated, it has chosen escalation over diplomacy."
"A return to war is illegal," NIAC emphasized. "Congress passed a war powers resolution directing the president to terminate hostilities, and a majority of Americans oppose another war with Iran. If President Trump wants to return to war, he must seek congressional authorization. If he refuses, Congress must enforce the law."
The US House of Representatives voted 215-208 in favor of a war powers resolution aimed at ending Trump's illegal war of choice on Iran early last month. After a few weeks, the Senate also passed it, with a 50-48 vote—but just a day later, under pressure from the president, Republican Sens. Bill Cassidy (La.) and Rand Paul (Ky.) helped the GOP block a subsequent measure.
Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), sponsor of the blocked resolution, said at the time that "after both Republican-majority Houses took the historic step of voting that additional war against Iran is illegal without congressional authorization, President Trump came to the Capitol and tried to browbeat Republican senators for upholding their oaths of office."
"To appease his temper tantrum, Republicans agreed to defeat a superfluous motion to proceed to a separate War Powers Resolution currently pending before the Senate," he continued. "The vote is of no consequence and does not undo the expressed position of Congress that further war against Iran is illegal unless Congress votes for it."
Kaine also spoke out Wednesday morning, saying: "Congress voted against more war with Iran. The U.S. should not be launching new strikes without congressional authorization and restarting a war that has raised gas prices, killed Americans, and hurt the economy. The U.S. and Iran must return to a ceasefire."
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) weighed in Wednesday afternoon: "Donald Trump's war with Iran has cost American lives, and jacked up prices on gas and groceries for millions across the globe. Congress voted against this war. Congress shouldn't allow Donald Trump to continue it."
Key House members have also spoken out since the strikes resumed Tuesday. Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) Chair Greg Casar (D-Texas) said that "Trump is extending his disastrous, illegal war with Iran. Congress and the American people have demanded the war end. Instead, Trump is choosing higher gas prices, more lives lost, and more instability. Outrageous."
Noting the new attacks and Trump's ceasefire comment, CPC Chair Emerita Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) similarly stressed that "this is another escalation in a war that the American people do not want. The House and Senate passed bipartisan war powers resolutions for this exact reason. This war must end NOW."
Keep ReadingShow Less
22 Democrats Join GOP to Block Lebanon War Powers Resolution, Enabling Netanyahu's Sabotage of US-Iran Ceasefire
"The United States is not a bystander to these war crimes. It's an active participant," said the resolutions sponsor Rep. Rashida Tlaib.
Jun 30, 2026
Nearly two dozen Democrats joined almost every Republican on Tuesday to vote down a war powers resolution that would have halted US military participation in Israel's assault on Lebanon, which is threatening to derail President Donald Trump's peace negotiations with Iran.
"More than 1.3 million people have already been forced to leave their homes or be killed, with the Israeli military telling them they will not be allowed to return," said the resolution's sponsor, Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), on the House floor Tuesday. "Eighty-one Lebanese neighborhoods have been violently depopulated and demolished—erased from the map entirely."
Along with Republican Reps. Thomas Massie (Ky.) and Lauren Boebert (Colo.), the resolution received support from 187 Democrats on Tuesday, more than double the number who supported a similar resolution introduced by Tlaib earlier this month.
Despite top House Democrats, including Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (NY) and Foreign Affairs Committee Ranking Member Gregory Meeks (NY), giving rhetorical backing to the resolution this time around, The Intercept reported that they did not formally whip the vote.
Twenty-two Democratic hawks joined the GOP to vote against ending cooperation with Israel's war, which has killed more than 4,000 people since March.
Among them were a clique of Democrats who have signed on to the centrist "Promise to America" aimed at countering the momentum of progressive and democratic socialist candidates within the party—including Reps. Donald Davis (NC), Laura Gillen (NY), Vicente Gonzalez (Texas), Josh Gottheimer (NJ), Adam Gray (Calif.), Susie Lee (Nev.), and Tom Suozzi (NY).
Others include favorites of the America Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), including Reps. George Latimer (NY), Henry Cuellar (Texas), Jared Golden (Maine), and Brad Schneider (Ill.), who have each received over a million dollars from it and other pro-Israel lobbying groups over their careers, according to FEC reports reviewed by Track AIPAC.
Other Democratic opponents include Reps. Steny Hoyer (Md.), Greg Landsman (Ohio), Jared Moskowitz (Fla.), Donald Norcross (NJ), Jimmy Panetta (Calif.), Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (Wash.), Brad Sherman (Calif.), Darren Soto (Fla.), Norma Torres (Calif.), Juan Vargas (Calif.), and Marc Veasey (Texas), many of whom have also received extensive support from the lobby.
As voting began on Tuesday afternoon, Lebanese-American journalist Rania Khalek said that "how people vote on this is a big indicator of who is bought and paid for by the war machine and Israel lobby."
In a comment to Axios, the staunch pro-Israel centrist Golden justified his vote against the measure by claiming that "to the best of my knowledge, we're not engaged in a conflict with Lebanon."
Latimer made a similar statement on social media, claiming that the resolution was only good for "messaging" since the US did not have any active troops in Lebanon.
But Tlaib argued on the House floor that "the United States is not a bystander to these war crimes. It's an active participant."
"The United States is currently engaged in illegal and unauthorized hostilities supporting the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in violation of the War Powers Act," she said. "The Trump administration is providing intelligence, coordinating strikes, demonstrating overt command over the Israeli military decisions, including greenlighting specific Israeli attacks and operations."
Other supporters of the resolution emphasized that ending Israel's occupation of Lebanon is a precondition for ending Trump's war with Iran.
"Ending Israeli military action in Lebanon is a key part of ensuring that the negotiation process with Iran continues and peace prevails in the Middle East," said Rep. Betty McCullom (D-Minn.).
The memorandum of understanding signed by the US and Iran earlier this month states that, for peace to be achieved, it must be implemented on "all fronts," including in Lebanon.
Iranian negotiators have repeatedly emphasized that they will not allow Trump to pull back from the war he's desperate to end unless Israel fully withdraws troops from Lebanon, which Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has emphatically refused to do.
Janet Abou-Elias, a researcher at the Democratizing Foreign Policy Project at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, told Common Dreams earlier this month that without US military participation, Israel could likely continue its occupation “only for a limited period of time."
Just Foreign Policy, an anti-war group that has agitated for the passage of Tlaib's war powers resolution, lambasted the 22 Democrats who voted against it.
"These 22 fringe House Democratic hawks revealed today that they don't actually want the Iran War to end," the group wrote in a post to social media. "By failing to end US participation in the Israeli war in Lebanon, they are undermining a peace deal."
Noting that the closure of the Strait of Hormuz has caused oil prices to spike and inflation to ripple across the economy, the group said these Democrats were "keeping prices high for Americans."
Just Foreign Policy's executive director Erik Sperling told The Intercept that although the resolution did not pass, the vote signaled that things were moving in the right direction.
“Democrats have been pretty unified about speaking out against the killing of innocents and all of the harm by the Iran War, but there has been less vocal outrage about the mass killing and occupation in Lebanon,” Sperling said. “This is just an important signal that Democrats are aware of the way the Lebanon war is a humanitarian crisis and is the key roadblock to ending this war and delivering the peace that Americans are demanding.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Congress to Vote on New Lebanon War Powers Resolution as Israel's Occupation Threatens to Blow Up Iran-US Peace Deal
"This vote is effectively a proxy vote on the Iran deal," an anti-war activist told Common Dreams. "Members who vote no are functionally prioritizing continued Israeli operations in Lebanon over the prospects of a deal."
Jun 29, 2026
As Israel's continued assault on Lebanon threatens to derail peace negotiations between the Trump administration and Iran, the US House of Representatives is expected to hold another vote on Tuesday on a war powers resolution that could halt American support for Israel's attacks.
H.Con.Res. 108, introduced in early June by Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), would direct President Donald Trump to halt US military involvement in "hostilities" connected to Israel's attacks on Lebanon, which have killed more than 4,000 people and led to the forced displacement of more than 1.2 million residents.
It is the second such resolution to be put to a vote in the House this month. H.Con.Res. 84, also introduced by Tlaib, was shot down after Democratic leadership declined to endorse it—since it did not include a carve-out allowing the US to continue coordinating actions against Hezbollah with the Lebanese military—but still received support from 91 Democrats, plus Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.).
The new resolution, which has the support of House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), Whip Katherine Clark (D-Mass.), and Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.), is expected to fare even better. The anti-war group Just Foreign Policy told Common Dreams that between 160 and 210 Democrats could now vote in favor of the measure.
Even in the best-case scenario, this would still require at least seven GOP defectors in addition to Massie. But Erik Sperling, Just Foreign Policy's executive director, said the fact that the vote was happening at all was still tremendously significant.
"This is only the second vote [to halt US military action in] Lebanon on the floor of Congress in history," he said. "It was already one of the most significant things imaginable that we'd even have a vote on it, much less have two in a month."
Adding to the significance is the fact that Israel's actions in Lebanon have become the primary obstacle to Trump's efforts to end the war in Iran.
The memorandum of understanding signed earlier this month calls for a halt to military operations "on all fronts," including Lebanon, and the Iranian delegation has repeatedly insisted that there is no deal without an Israeli withdrawal.
Last week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu doubled down on his defiance of the agreement, stating that Israel would not withdraw "as long as I am prime minister." Defense Minister Israel Katz added there had been "no American demand for Israel to withdraw."
This is despite Trump's public and private fuming at Israel for derailing his desperate efforts to back out of the conflict, which is deathly unpopular among the American public and which he has warned will cause "global economic catastrophe" if allowed to drag on much longer.
Israel and Lebanon agreed to another US-brokered framework on Friday that is supposed to set up a path for the Lebanese army to take over so-called "pilot zones" in southern Lebanon that are currently controlled by Israel. But in order for Israel to fully withdraw, it has demanded that Hezbollah fully disarm, which the group has said it will not do.
On the ground, there is little sign the deal is being implemented. Since Friday, Israel has conducted several strikes both inside the occupation zone and outside of it against what it said were Hezbollah militants.
While members of House Democratic leadership have said that the US is "not currently engaged in hostilities in Lebanon," supporters of Tlaib's measure have noted that even without boots on the ground, the US is intimately involved in Israel's attacks. Trump has reportedly given a "green light" to multiple operations, and Israel has extensively relied on US intelligence.
Janet Abou-Elias, a researcher at the Democratizing Foreign Policy Project at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, told Common Dreams earlier this month that ending US coordination with Israel would significantly hamper its ability to continue its occupation of Lebanon.
With Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baqaei reiterating on Monday that an end to Israel's occupation of Lebanon was an “essential prerequisite” for an end to the war with the US, the anti-war coalition on Capitol Hill has said the urgency of passing Tlaib's resolution is only continuing to grow.
"This vote is effectively a proxy vote on the Iran deal," Sperling said. "Any member who genuinely wants a negotiated end to the Iran conflict should be voting yes. Members who vote no are functionally prioritizing continued Israeli operations in Lebanon over the prospects of a deal."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'We Should Go to Court': Khanna Says Latest US Bombings of Iran a 'Blatant Violation' by Trump
"Trump must stop this war now—or we will take him to court to compel him to do so."
Jun 28, 2026
Democratic Congressman Ro Khanna on Sunday reiterated his position that new bombings of Iran by the US military over the weekend are a direct violation of a War Powers Resolution passed by Congress earlier this month and said legal action was in the works to challenge the president's ability to carry on with the unprovoked war he first launched alongside Israel in February.
"These strikes are a blatant violation of the War Powers Resolution that we passed," Khanna said in a social media post Saturday after Trump acknowledged strikes on numerous Iranian targets. "Trump must stop this war now—or we will take him to court to compel him to do so."
In a Saturday statement on his Truth Social platform, Trump said the US had "struck Iranian missile and drone storage locations, and coastal radar sites, for violating the Cease Fire Agreement, AGAIN!"
"It is very possible that they will never learn!" the president exclaimed. "There may come a point when we are no longer able to be reasonable, and will be forced to militarily complete the job that we very successfully started. If that happens, the Islamic Republic of Iran will no longer exist!"
The latest direct exchange of hostilities—that began with US bombings of Iranian targets Friday and included Iran targeting US allies in Bahrain and Kuwait on Sunday—come over lingering disagreements about how vessels will or will not pass through the Strait of Hormuz.
"Congress passed the first War Powers Resolution in history, legally compeling an end to war on Iran," the anti-war group Just Foreign Policy said following Friday's strikes. "This means Trump's strikes today are an unprecedented Constitutional violation **Trump must be taken to court** to honor the American people's demand that we exit this war — NOW."
Iran Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Sunday that “interference in [the Strait], any attempt to establish new or separate arrangements from those currently being carried out by the Islamic Republic of Iran, will only lead to further complications, delay the reopening of the strait of Hormuz, and increase the level of tension.”
Araghchi called for a regional agreement to settle the issue of passage through the Strait, but indicated the US should have no role in determining the outcome of the settlement. On Saturday, the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC) said that the US—"whose very nature is characterized by breaking commitments and violating agreements"—was guilty of firing on coastal targets but that such attacks would not deter the Iranian military from exerting control over the Strait.
"Henceforth," said the IRGC, "vessels found to be in violation will be dealt with more firmly than before."
On June 23, a 50-48 vote in the Senate saw a war powers resolution pass the upper chamber after the House also passed a similar resolution on June 3 to bring an end to the war started by the US and Israel on February 28. But as Khanna explained Sunday, speaking with journalist David Sirota, these votes have not been enough to curb the president's actions.
🚨NEW: Congress just passed resolutions to block Trump from continuing the Iran War. The resolutions carry the force of law under the text of the 1973 War Powers Act. Now, @RoKhanna tells me he is working to organize lawmakers to bring an historic court case to enforce the law. pic.twitter.com/IBH7dbKcxG
— David Sirota (@davidsirota) June 28, 2026
Asked by Sirota what he would be doing to compel Trump to adhere to the congressional opposition to Trump's ongoing aggression against Iran, Khanna said, "we should go to court."
Noting that former Republican Congressman Tom Campbell, back in 1999, had taken former President Bill Clinton to court for violating a War Powers Resolution during the US-backed NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, Khanna said he is preparing to follow a similar course.
"This is something that we should try to enforce," Khanna said. "And I'm working with my colleagues to see how we can get a group to take this case to the courts."
Keep ReadingShow Less
If Congress Can No Longer Stop an Unauthorized War, Whose Job Is It Now?
For half a century, federal courts have waved away the war-powers question as a “political question” the elected branches would settle among themselves. Late June proved they cannot. That is precisely why the Supreme Court must finally take the case.
Jun 27, 2026
For one day in late June, it looked as though the Constitution had won. For the first time in the 53-year life of the War Powers Resolution, both chambers of Congress voted to order a president to remove US forces from a war he had never asked them to authorize. The House carried the measure on June 3. The Senate followed on June 23. After more than half a century of the legislature flinching from its own authority, here at last was a majority in both houses saying, on the record, that the war in Iran was not theirs and would not be waged in their name.
It lasted about 24 hours.
The resolution that passed was a concurrent resolution—a vehicle that, by design, never reaches the president’s desk and carries no force of law. The measure with teeth, the one that would have required his signature, reached the Senate floor the very next day, June 24. By then the president had summoned Senate Republicans to a closed-door lunch, turned it into a confrontation over the war, and sent at least one wavering senator to a same-day White House briefing. When the binding resolution was called, it failed. Two senators who had voted to constrain the war on Tuesday declined to do so on Wednesday. A war-powers majority had been assembled and dismantled inside a single news cycle—not by argument on the merits, but by a luncheon and a briefing.
Set aside, for a moment, the conduct of any one senator. The deeper fact is structural, and it should trouble anyone who believes the decision to go to war belongs to the people through their representatives. If Congress can pass a war-powers resolution and then refuse to enforce it within a day, the question is no longer whether Congress will check this president. The question is whether it can—and what is supposed to happen when it cannot.
A Congress that can be moved from a war-powers majority to a war-powers minority overnight is not a Congress that is merely choosing not to act. It is a Congress that has shown it cannot make its own action stick.
The administration has not been coy about its view. The war in Iran began in late February without a congressional vote. The Resolution’s 60-day clock expired on May 1, and the president answered with a letter declaring the hostilities “terminated” even as a naval blockade remained in force. His secretary of state told a White House briefing that the War Powers Act is “unconstitutional, 100%,” adding that the administration honors it only as a courtesy, to preserve good relations with Congress. The vice president had earlier dismissed the statute as “a fake and unconstitutional law.” Strip away the “show,” and one proposition remains: that a duly enacted federal law binds the executive only when, and only so far as, the executive cares to be bound. That is not a war-powers position. It is a position about whether laws are laws.
Nor did the threats subside. Even after a memorandum of understanding was signed in mid-June to extend the ceasefire and reopen the Strait of Hormuz, the president warned that he would “bomb the hell out of” Iran if it failed to comply—a threat of force in open tension with the very agreement he had just concluded. Days earlier, discussing Iran’s nuclear stockpile, he reached for “the ultimate alternative, hopefully never to be used again,” the unmistakable register of nuclear menace from the leader of the only nation ever to have used such weapons against a civilian population. As I have argued previously in these pages, language like this is not loose talk. It is the rhetorical scaffolding of a war the public was never asked to approve.
Here is where the courts enter—or rather, where they have declined to. For 50 years, whenever members of Congress have asked federal judges to enforce the war-powers framework, the judiciary has turned them away, most often by invoking the “political question” doctrine: the notion that disputes between the political branches over war are committed to those branches to resolve, not to courts. That doctrine has always rested on an empirical assumption—that the political process can correct itself, that Congress has tools enough to defend its own prerogatives if only it chooses to use them.
June 23 and 24 are the clearest refutation of that assumption in a generation. The political branches did not resolve this. They demonstrated, in real time and on camera, that the institutional machinery the doctrine relies upon no longer holds under pressure. A Congress that can be moved from a war-powers majority to a war-powers minority overnight is not a Congress that is merely choosing not to act. It is a Congress that has shown it cannot make its own action stick. When the premise of a doctrine collapses, the doctrine built upon it should not survive untouched.
So whose job is it now? The answer the Constitution supplies, once the political branches have failed, points to the one branch that has spent half a century looking away: the judiciary. The Supreme Court has never squarely decided whether a president may wage sustained, unauthorized hostilities past the 60-day deadline in defiance of an explicit statute. It has had reasons, prudential and real, to avoid the question. Those reasons weaken by the week. When an administration pronounces a federal statute void from the podium, complies only as “good relations,” and a Congress that votes to end the war cannot keep the vote alive for a day, the case for judicial abstention has run out. The framework Justice Robert Jackson set down in Youngstown—that a president acts at the “lowest ebb” of his power when he moves against the expressed will of Congress—was written for precisely this situation. It is waiting to be applied.
None of this is simple. Standing is a genuine hurdle; the path to the court runs most plausibly through members of Congress, or a chamber, suing in their institutional capacity rather than through any single citizen. The political-question doctrine will be raised again. But “political question” was always a choice the courts made, not a command the Constitution issued—and the conditions that once made the choice defensible no longer hold. A controversy is ripe for decision when it is concrete and when withholding review inflicts real harm. A war waged in the country’s name without its consent; a statute openly nullified; a legislature unable to enforce its own majority: If that is not ripe, nothing is. And Iran, for all its starkness, is not the only theater in which force has lately preceded authorization rather than followed it.
The Framers placed the war power in Article I—the first article, the people’s article—for a reason that does not age. They had watched kings march nations into war on their own word, and they meant to make that impossible here. The power “to declare War” was given to Congress alone. The War Powers Act did not invent that allocation; it merely tried to make it work in an age of undeclared wars. If Congress can no longer make it work, and the courts will not look, then the war power has quietly migrated to wherever the president happens to be standing when he decides to use it. That is the exact outcome the Constitution was written to prevent.
The stalemate is not an accident of partisanship; it has hardened into a feature of the system, and this president has learned to exploit it with unusual skill. Breaking stalemates between the political branches is what a court of last resort exists to do. It is time for the Supreme Court to take up the question it has avoided for 50 years—and to say, before the next war begins without a vote, who in this country actually holds the power to start one.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Caving to Trump 'Temper Tantrum,' Two Republicans Flip to Block Iran War Powers Resolution
Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy, who lost reelection last month and said he would not be "bullied," switched his vote to no after the president berated him during a closed-door lunch hours earlier.
Jun 25, 2026
Two Senate Republicans who supported a previous resolution calling for an end to the US war on Iran changed their votes late Wednesday after President Donald Trump publicly and privately berated GOP lawmakers, calling them "losers" who provided "aid and comfort to the enemy."
In Wednesday's procedural vote, Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.)—who reportedly got into a shouting match with Trump over the Iran war during a closed-door lunch hours earlier—sided with virtually every other Republican in opposing the war powers resolution, just a day after he supported a separate, symbolic resolution calling for the removal of US forces from the conflict. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) also switched, changing his vote to "present" at the urging of the president.
Senate Republicans forced late Wednesday's vote in a clear effort to placate Trump, who fumed at "Republican losers" who backed the symbolic war powers resolution that passed the upper chamber earlier this week. Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), the lead sponsor of the resolution that Republicans blocked on Wednesday, said the vote was held to "appease [Trump's] temper tantrum."
"After both Republican-majority Houses took the historic step of voting that additional war against Iran is illegal without congressional authorization, President Trump came to the Capitol and tried to browbeat Republican senators for upholding their oaths of office," said Kaine. Wednesday's vote, the senator added, "does not undo the expressed position of Congress that further war against Iran is illegal unless Congress votes for it."
Trump, who has repeatedly threatened to resume attacks on Iran if negotiations collapse, celebrated Wednesday's vote in a late-night post on his social media platform, thanking Senate GOP leaders and highlighting that Cassidy and Paul changed their votes.
Cassidy, who lost reelection last month and insisted hours before the vote that he would not "be bullied" by the administration, subsequently thanked the White House for giving him a "thorough briefing" on Iran to "address many of my concerns." Trump reportedly called Cassidy a "lunatic" during Wednesday's private lunch.
"This president is telling the American people there’s no money for healthcare, housing, or childcare—but there should be endless taxpayer dollars to fund wars they don’t support."
Wednesday's vote came amid tenuous negotiations between the US and Iran on a diplomatic resolution to end the illegal war that Trump launched in late February, killing thousands of Iranians, throwing the global economy into chaos, and driving up prices at home.
On Wednesday, prior to the Senate war powers vote, the White House asked Congress to approve an $87.6 billion supplemental funding package that includes nearly $70 billion for military programs to address "operational costs incurred" during the war on Iran.
Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, said in a statement that "the tens of billions in military spending requested by the Trump administration could be used to protect Americans’ healthcare, feed hungry children, and help working families afford everyday life."
"Instead, Trump wants taxpayers to continue footing the bill for his reckless war in Iran, which has sent the cost of gas and everyday goods skyrocketing, put our brave men and women in uniform at risk, and left the region no safer than before," Boyle added.
Senate Democrats' top appropriator, Patty Murray of Washington, said she would not "rubberstamp tens of billions more for this disastrous war of choice."
“This president is telling the American people there’s no money for healthcare, housing, or childcare—but there should be endless taxpayer dollars to fund wars they don’t support," said Murray.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'End It Now': Senate Passes War Powers Resolution Rebuking Trump's Iran War
"The House and the Senate have both stood up," Democratic Washington Rep. Pramila Jayapal said. "It’s time to stop this deadly and costly conflict."
Jun 23, 2026
In a "major bipartisan rebuke" of President Donald Trump's illegal war on Iran, the US Senate on Tuesday passed a war powers resolution instructing Trump to withdraw US forces from Iran.
The vote was 50 to 48, with four Republicans joining the vast majority of Democrats to approve the resolution that was passed by the US House of Representatives earlier this month.
"The House and the Senate have both stood up," Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) wrote in celebration of the vote on social media. "It’s time to stop this deadly and costly conflict."
Republican Sens. Rand Paul (Ky.), Susan Collins (Maine), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), and Bill Cassidy (La.) voted in favor of the resolution while Democratic Sen. John Fetterman (Pa.) voted against it.
"Congress finally passed a war powers resolution to stop Trump's illegal war in Iran. It has been a disaster from the start."
"The vote was 50-48, with four Republicans joining Democrats to say Trump should not be able to keep dragging America deeper into military conflict," attorney Aaron Parnas wrote on social media. "This is a major bipartisan rebuke of Trump’s foreign policy chaos."
Anti-war group CodePink wrote, "The will of the people is undeniable: It's time to permanently end this war of aggression."
BREAKING: US Senate passes Iran War Powers Resolution by a vote of 50-48.
The resolution demands the removal of US forces from all hostilities against Iran. It's already passed the House.
The will of the people is undeniable: it's time to permanently end this war of aggression. pic.twitter.com/27rxceRu81
— CODEPINK (@codepink) June 23, 2026
The vote was a long time coming, as Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer noted it was Democrats' 10th attempt to limit Trump's ability to wage undeclared war since he unilaterally embroiled the US in a joint attack on Iran with Israel, beginning on February 28.
Schumer criticized the majority of Republicans for repeatedly failing to vote against the war, which he said would "go down in the history books as one of the worst foreign policy forays America has ever made," according to The Associated Press.
Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) wrote on social media: "Congress finally passed a war powers resolution to stop Trump's illegal war in Iran. It has been a disaster from the start. End it now."
The vote made history by being the first time both the House and Senate have passed a concurrent resolution calling for an end to a conflict since the War Powers Resolution of 1973, as The New York Times reported.
Concurrent resolutions do not require a presidential signature and therefore do not typically have the force of law. However, Democratic lawmakers and foreign policy experts argue that because Congress has the ability to declare war under the Constitution, the resolution should still restrict the president's actions.
Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY), who sponsored the House resolution, wrote: "With the Senate passage of my Iran War Powers Resolution, both chambers have now made clear that the president cannot continue this war of choice and must cease all hostilities against Iran. Regardless of what President Trump says, this measure is binding under the War Powers Resolution, and I will explore all legal avenues to ensure the executive complies with the will of Congress. Congress never authorized this failed war, and the president certainly has no authority to continue it indefinitely without our consent as the Constitution demands."
The vote comes about a week after the US and Iran signed a memorandum of understanding to move toward ending the war that has killed at least 3,400 in Iran and thousands more across the region. However, the subsequent ceasefire and negotiations have been rocky and uncertain due to continued Israeli attacks on Lebanon and threats from Trump.
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More Stories
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy