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 Are in a Constitutional Crisis': Congress Urged to Sue Trump to End Iran War
"Sitting and doing nothing is not an option and is eroding our democracy and system of checks and balances."
Sep 02, 2026
With no end in sight to President Donald Trump's illegal war with Iran, Congress is being urged to take legal action to bring the conflict to an end.
Jamal Abdi, executive director at National Iranian American Council (NIAC) Action, said on Wednesday that Congress must go to court to enforce the war powers resolution that passed in the House and the Senate earlier this year.
"We are in a constitutional crisis and our lawmakers cannot simply roll over or bide their time as Trump traps the country in an illegal forever war," said Abdi. "For the first time in US history, Congress has passed legislation mandating the president withdraw from the war, and now they must take him to court to enforce it."
Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY), ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, introduced a resolution in July that would compel House Speaker Mike Johnson (D-La.) to sue Trump and enforce the will of Congress to end the war.
However, Abdi argued that US lawmakers are not moving with the proper urgency to stop Trump from continuing his illegal attacks on Iran, which have been carried out for more than six months despite receiving no congressional authorization.
"Congress must assert its authority as a co-equal branch of government and sue to end the administration’s illegal war," Abdi emphasized. “We need urgent action, not more deliberation. Sitting and doing nothing is not an option and is eroding our democracy and system of checks and balances."
According to Politico congressional reporter Riley Rogerson, Meeks on Tuesday said that there are currently no plans to bring up a new war powers resolution, although he didn't rule out taking action.
"Democrats are unsure how long the House will be in before the midterms," wrote Rogerson, "which makes planning a challenge."
Johnson on Tuesday showed no appetite for getting Congress more involved in the conflict during a testy exchange with CNN reporter Manu Raju, who asked the Louisiana Republican if the American public should judge him for the negative impact the war has had on their personal finances.
Speaker Johnson defensive about his past projections about the Iran war, including repeatedly saying it’s just a skirmish that would be over in short order and cause just a “temporary blip” in gas prices.
More than six months in, asked him if the public should judge him on his… pic.twitter.com/0BpVaGy6xC
— Manu Raju (@mkraju) September 1, 2026
"That is one of the stupidest questions you've ever asked," Johnson replied.
"What, why is that stupid?" Raju asked.
"I have nothing to do with the prosecution of the war across the globe," Johnson said.
Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution states that Congress, not the president, has the power to declare war.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump’s Legacy: An Unchecked Presidency and a War That May Outlast Him
The Iran conflict is testing whether Congress can still meaningfully constrain presidential war making—and what powers future presidents may inherit.
Aug 25, 2026
On August 18, President Donald Trump said no talks with Iran were underway or scheduled, while the US naval blockade remained in force and Tehran insisted the Strait of Hormuz would stay closed until Washington met the terms of the June interim agreement. The impasse sharpens the most consequential question surrounding Trump’s legacy: not whether he wins or loses this war, but whether he leaves behind expanded presidential power, weakened constitutional checks on war making, and a diminished commitment to a rules-based international order. A president can leave office. A war can outlive him.
That is increasingly the danger confronting the United States. Trump’s confrontation with Iran has evolved from a military campaign into a constitutional and institutional test: Can an American president initiate and sustain major hostilities without explicit congressional authorization, and can Congress still meaningfully restrain him once the fighting has begun? The answer will shape far more than the remainder of Trump’s presidency. It will establish a precedent for every administration that follows.
The central issue is therefore not simply Trump’s foreign policy. It is the emergence of unchecked presidential power in the conduct of war. The United States entered the Iran conflict without a specific congressional authorization. Since then, the administration has advanced expansive interpretations of executive authority while Congress has struggled to reassert its constitutional prerogatives. The War Powers Resolution remains an important, if imperfect, mechanism for limiting the executive branch’s ability to sustain hostilities without congressional consent.
The danger becomes particularly acute when an administration can redefine the status of a conflict without ending the underlying military posture. The War Powers framework was designed to prevent presidents from converting temporary military action into an open-ended commitment: Absent congressional authorization, the law generally requires the president to terminate the use of US armed forces after 60 days. Yet the Trump administration has challenged the idea that this statutory clock should operate as an automatic constraint on presidential authority.
If lawmakers fail to reassert their authority, Trump’s most consequential legacy may be the normalization of a presidency capable of committing the United States to war without meaningful congressional authorization and leaving later administrations to deal with the consequences.
That creates a dangerous precedent. If a president can initiate hostilities, characterize them as limited or defensive, reinterpret the statutory clock, and then continue military operations without explicit authorization, the constitutional allocation of war powers becomes increasingly theoretical. The consequences are no longer hypothetical.
Congress has repeatedly attempted to invoke its war powers over Iran. In June, the House passed a measure directing the president to remove US forces from hostilities with Iran, and the Senate later adopted it. In July, the House again approved a war-powers resolution by 214-208, while the Senate rejected its own measure, 47-49. These votes expose the political problem: Congress is being asked to choose between institutional loyalty to the presidency and constitutional loyalty to the republic. For Republican lawmakers, the choice is especially consequential. Allowing a Republican president to expand executive authority without meaningful resistance establishes powers that a future Democratic president—or another Republican—could inherit in very different circumstances.
The question, therefore, is not whether Congress likes Trump. It is whether Congress is willing to allow presidential power to become self-expanding. Trump’s legacy also extends beyond the domestic constitutional order. His approach has placed pressure on the foundations of the liberal international system: predictable alliances, institutional constraints, multilateral diplomacy, and the assumption that American power operates within rules rather than merely according to presidential preference.
The Iran conflict demonstrates the problem with extraordinary clarity. The June agreement was intended to extend a ceasefire and create a pathway toward a permanent settlement, including negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program. That framework has effectively collapsed. Trump has ruled out extending it; the confrontation around the Strait of Hormuz continues; and he has threatened military action against Oman, a US partner involved in efforts surrounding the strait. A mechanism meant to create a pathway out of war has become another stage in an unresolved confrontation.
Washington has even declared that it can maintain its naval blockade of Iran indefinitely. This is how wars acquire a life of their own. Once forces are deployed, enemies mobilize, allies become involved, economic interests are affected, and political credibility becomes attached to the outcome, withdrawal grows more difficult. The president who starts the war may eventually discover that ending it is politically more dangerous than continuing it.
And the president who inherits it may discover that he has inherited not merely a conflict, but an entire strategic architecture: deployed forces, military commitments, sanctions regimes, regional alliances, adversaries with incentives to retaliate, and political expectations that make disengagement appear equivalent to defeat.
Trump may therefore leave office, but the war may remain. This is the deeper paradox of his “America First” approach. A doctrine supposedly designed to reduce unnecessary foreign entanglements can instead produce new and potentially durable ones. The more Washington relies on military coercion without a clearly defined political end state, the more difficult it becomes to determine what victory actually means—and therefore what conditions would permit the United States to leave.
The consequences for American democracy are equally serious. Democracy does not depend solely on elections. It depends on institutions capable of constraining whoever wins those elections. If Congress becomes unwilling or unable to prevent reckless escalation without congressional consent, then the constitutional system has lost one of its most important safeguards.
This is why the current confrontation should not be reduced to a partisan dispute between Democrats and Republicans. The real issue is whether the United States still believes that war is a national decision rather than a presidential prerogative. Congress must therefore make a choice that transcends Trump himself: party loyalty or constitutional patriotism.
Republican lawmakers who defend Trump’s authority today should consider what they are actually defending. They are not merely protecting the foreign policy of one president. They are helping define the permissible scope of presidential power for decades to come. Once extraordinary powers become precedent, they rarely remain confined to the circumstances in which they were created.
The United States has survived presidents with radically different visions of executive authority. What allows the constitutional system to survive them is the willingness of institutions to impose limits on presidential power. If lawmakers fail to reassert their authority, Trump’s most consequential legacy may be the normalization of a presidency capable of committing the United States to war without meaningful congressional authorization and leaving later administrations to deal with the consequences. Trump will eventually leave the White House. The precedent he creates may not.
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Third Door: How Covert Regime Change Slips Past the War Powers Resolution
Congress can stop a war it can see. It cannot stop one its members are forbidden to describe—and that is now the door the pressure campaign against Cuba has walked through.
Aug 13, 2026
Last December, writing here about unrest in Iran, I had to be careful. We must resist the temptation to treat capability as conspiracy, I wrote, while also resisting the delusion that absence of evidence means absence of action. That caution was owed to readers, because I could point to a history and a capability but not to an operation.
That caution is no longer necessary. In the first week of August, American newspapers reported that the Central Intelligence Agency has established a dedicated Cuba task force—case officers, analysts, cyber operators, specialists in covert influence—whose reported mandate is to create fissures among the Cuban political elite, in the hope of pressuring the replacement of officials deemed anti-American with leaders more agreeable to the president's demands. Cuba has been elevated to "Priority 1" in the intelligence community's collection framework, alongside China, Iran, and Russia. Satellites are being re-tasked. The Agency declined to comment.
We are told there are limits: no organized Cuban partners, no authority for lethal operations. We are also told, in the same breath, that the president may modify those authorities at any time.
What is remarkable here is not the operation. Lindsey A. O'Rourke's Covert Regime Change documents 64 covert American attempts to change foreign governments between 1947 and 1989, against six overt ones—a ratio of 10 to one. Only 25 succeeded even by the undemanding measure that an American-backed client took power. Her most damning finding is the one least quoted: States targeted for regime change—especially those that survived the attempt—were more likely to experience civil war or mass killing in the years that followed.
Covert action undertaken to alter the composition or constitutional order of a foreign government should be forbidden.
What is remarkable is that nothing in American law stands in the way—and that the reason has nothing to do with secrecy.
A Statute That Ends Things, and a Statute That Only Reports Them
The War Powers Resolution is not, at bottom, a reporting statute. It is a termination statute. It gives the president 48 hours to report and 60 days to finish, after which he shall terminate the use of the forces concerned unless Congress affirmatively says otherwise. Congressional silence ends the operation. That default is the whole of its design.
Covert action runs under an entirely different law, 50 U.S.C. §3093. There must be a written presidential finding. The intelligence committees must be kept "fully and currently informed." These are real constraints, born of real scandals, and it would be wrong to say Congress is blind.
But §3093 contains no clock, no expiry, and no vote—ever. A finding, once signed and reported, may run indefinitely. Silence continues it. And where a war powers report enters a public record on which any member may act, a finding goes to two committees behind closed doors, sometimes to eight members alone. Those outside may not be told; those inside may not speak. The floor vote that the War Powers Resolution treats as the ordinary constitutional remedy becomes structurally impossible, because a legislature cannot vote on what its members are forbidden to describe.
Then there is the definitional gap, which is the loophole properly so called. The resolution regulates the introduction of "United States Armed Forces" into hostilities. Case officers are not Armed Forces. Identical objective, identical target, identical effect—but a different statute, depending on which badge the operator carries.
I have argued in these pages that economic warfare capable of collapsing a foreign economy should be subject to reporting and time limits comparable to those governing armed force. I still believe it. But I have to report that it would not close this gap. The War Powers Resolution regulates a category of actor. An economic amendment would regulate a category of instrument. Any scheme built on categories will leak, because the executive may always choose the category nobody regulates. Only a rule keyed to effects will hold.
Consent That No One Can Authenticate
In January I argued here that Washington's claims of Venezuelan "cooperation" were null and void, because consent extracted under coercion is not consent. Covert action takes that one step further, and it is worse.
Suppose the task force succeeds. Suppose that some month soon the Cuban leadership is reconstituted, or a concession is made, or an agreement signed on precisely the terms demanded. Who will be able to say who authored it?
Not Congress, which will have seen a finding but not its consequences. Not the United Nations, whose bedrock principle protects a state's freedom to choose its own political and economic system without external coercion. Not the Cuban people, in whose name it would be done. Not the American public, in whose name it was mounted. And not the negotiators themselves—the same agency whose director flew to Havana in May to meet Cuba's interior minister, its intelligence chief, and the intermediary through whom talks are said to run is the agency now tasked with fracturing the leadership those talks would bind.
A settlement whose authorship cannot be established is a settlement no one can rely on—including the party that obtained it. Covert influence aimed at the composition of a foreign government does not merely violate the norm against intervention. It destroys the evidence by which compliance with that norm could ever be judged.
The Trap in the Obvious Remedy
The obvious answer is to regulate: an effects-based trigger reaching any sustained effort to alter a foreign government's composition, whichever agency conducts it; a finding that expires by law unless renewed by recorded committee vote; a path by which a committee can reach the full Congress in closed session.
I proposed exactly that, and then thought better of the framing. A statute that regulates a practice licenses it. Write a clock for operations aimed at foreign governments and you have conceded that such operations are lawfully available—and that concession reaches backward across O'Rourke's 64, converting a record of illegality into the quaint era before the paperwork. This is, not coincidentally, what intelligence services themselves have long wanted: Statutory footing transfers the risk from the officer to the statute. The vocabulary follows on its own. Subversion becomes stabilization. Regime change becomes democratic transition assistance. Fracturing an elite becomes engagement with reform-minded elements.
So the operative provision must be prohibition, not licensing. Covert action undertaken to alter the composition or constitutional order of a foreign government should be forbidden. The trigger, the clock, and the escalation path are then not the scheme but its enforcement—and the governing rule for the intelligence work that legitimately remains: collection, counterintelligence, counterterrorism, counterproliferation.
What Is at Stake in Havana
None of this is abstract in Cuba right now. On August 2 the national grid collapsed for the sixth time this year. On August 3 the restoration itself failed, and it collapsed again. The country's own energy minister said plainly that Cuba has no fuel and expects none in the volumes it needs, and that containers of solar panels, food, and medicines sit held at nearby ports—some destined for children whose medical condition depends on electricity. On August 6, United Nations experts said the humanitarian consequences are unfolding into a full-blown crisis, called the measures incompatible with Article 2 of the Charter, and urged the Security Council and General Assembly to take the matter up as one of international peace and security.
Into that, we have now introduced an effort to fracture a political elite. Whatever one thinks of the Cuban government—and one may think a great deal—an operation of that kind, in a country in that condition, is not an operation with a narrow band of outcomes. It sits adjacent to the conditions in which atrocity becomes possible.
Congress can stop a war it can see. Six months ago I asked in these pages whose job it is when Congress can no longer stop an unauthorized war. The answer keeps narrowing, and the doors keep multiplying. Two have been narrowed. A third stands open, and we have just been told, in the newspaper, that someone has walked through it.
Keep ReadingShow Less
As Nearly Two-Thirds of Americans Demand End to Iran Attacks, Latest Senate Resolution to Stop War Fails
"Listen to the American people. Vote to end this war," said Sen. Chuck Schumer. "We’re going to keep forcing Republicans to vote until we do.”
Jul 30, 2026
The vast majority of US Senate Republicans were joined by Democratic Sen. John Fetterman on Thursday in voting against a war powers resolution to block the Trump administration from continuing to attack Iran without congressional approval, as new polling showed nearly two-thirds of Americans think the war is not worth fighting.
For the second time in as many weeks and the 13th time this year, Senate Democrats called on Republicans to limit President Donald Trump's authority to take military action, pointing to rising anger over the assault on Iran, which has killed at least 18 US service members and more than 3,400 Iranians, as well as thousands more across the region, mostly in Lebanon, as Iran has retaliated in the unprovoked US-Israeli conflict.
“Are Senate Republicans listening? The country is clamoring for you to end this war,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said. “I urge and plead with my Republican colleagues: Listen to the American people. Vote to end this war. We’re going to keep forcing Republicans to vote until we do.”
The Associated Press-NORC Research Center poll released Thursday showed that 64% of Americans disapprove of the continuation of the war, including 37% of Republicans. Seventy percent of respondents said the Trump administration should prioritize a permanent ceasefire with Iran after a memorandum of understanding to end the war collapsed in early July and Trump relaunched attacks on the Middle Eastern country.
Seventy-two percent of respondents also said it was "extremely" or "very" important to them to ensure gas and oil prices are reduced after the war. Iran's closure of the Strait of Hormuz has sent the price of gas soaring—adding to Americans' concerns over the rising cost of essentials.
Three Republicans—Sens. Susan Collins (Maine), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), and Rand Paul (Ky.)—joined Democrats in supporting the war powers resolution, with a final vote of 50-49. But even Republicans who supported allowing Trump to continue the war he started in February, despite the fact that the War Powers Act of 1973 only gives him 60-90 days to end a conflict he has started, addressed the cost-of-living crisis the war is worsening.
“The rising gas prices are a real concern to everybody,” Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD) said.
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) said on the Senate floor Thursday that while Trump is "pouring billions of tax dollars into an open ended war in Iran, this reckless war is driving up monthly bills and making everyday life harder for working families. "
.@SenGillibrand (D-NY) urges for passage of Iran War Powers Resolution, ahead of the vote: "This reckless war is driving up monthly bills and making everyday life harder for working families... Under the constitution, we have the power to end the war today — let's use it!" pic.twitter.com/zhLNOzNioZ
— CSPAN (@cspan) July 30, 2026
The resolution failed hours after Iranian media reported that one of the strikes by US Central Command Wednesday night had killed a family of three, including a 2-year-old child.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Congress Hasn’t Authorized Trump’s Iran War—or Ended It
The House voted to halt unauthorized hostilities; the Senate blocked a final vote, leaving troops and civilians inside a war lawmakers refuse to own.
Jul 29, 2026
On July 23, the House of Representatives voted 214-208 to direct President Donald Trump to remove US forces from hostilities with Iran unless Congress authorizes them. Hours later, the Senate rejected a motion to bring a separate war powers resolution out of committee, 47-49.
The Senate did not authorize the war. It did not even vote on the resolution itself. It blocked the measure before senators had to answer the central question: Should the United States continue fighting a war Congress has never approved?
The war continued anyway.
That is the dangerous precedent now taking shape in Washington. The president can begin or expand military operations, and Congress is left trying to stop them after the bombs have fallen and retaliation has begun. If opponents cannot clear committees, procedural votes, narrow majorities, and a likely presidential veto, inertia does the work of authorization. No lawmaker has to cast a clear vote for the war, but troops and civilians must still live with the consequences.
The burden must fall on those who want the war to continue. They should have to explain, publicly and repeatedly, why more Americans and Iranians must die and what political outcome those deaths are supposed to achieve.
The conflict began on February 28, when the United States and Israel attacked Iran. Trump has since expanded direct US involvement without obtaining a congressional mandate. By July 22, the war had killed 18 US service members and injured hundreds more. The Pentagon put its cost at $37.5 billion, a figure that includes some anticipated expenses through September 30. A July Reuters/Ipsos poll found that 79% of Americans expected the conflict to drag on, while only 37% approved of the US strikes.
Iranian civilians have paid a far heavier price. The US-based Human Rights Activists News Agency reported that by April 10, 1,701 civilians, including at least 254 children, had been killed since the war began. Iran’s Health Ministry said another 50 civilians were killed and 500 wounded during the renewed US strikes in July. An anti-war politics worthy of the name cannot ask Americans to care about their own soldiers while treating Iranian deaths as background noise.
For working-class families, the war is not an argument about executive theory. It arrives as an extended deployment, a flag-draped coffin, a long recovery from injury, higher fuel prices, and another demand that public money be redirected toward a conflict with no visible conclusion. The officials who refuse to define the mission do not bear those costs equally.
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), who introduced the House resolution, said the war has “no clear mission, no strategy, no end goal.” The administration has moved among overlapping justifications: preventing a nuclear-armed Iran, retaliating for attacks, protecting US forces, and keeping commercial shipping open, as well as degrading Tehran’s regional military capabilities. Each objective can be used to justify another strike. None provides a measurable definition of victory or a credible route out.
Republican leaders argue that limiting Trump during active hostilities would weaken the United States and endanger deployed forces. The White House says the president needs flexibility to repel Iranian attacks and protect American personnel. It also argues that the House’s concurrent resolution lacks the force of law and warns that the measure could create “operational paralysis.”
A president must be able to protect troops from an immediate attack. That narrow defensive authority cannot become a blank check to define and prolong an entire war without Congress. Otherwise, each deployment creates the danger later invoked to expand it: US forces enter the conflict, Iran attacks them, and protecting them becomes the rationale for another round of strikes.
Sending troops into an open-ended conflict without a public mandate is not support. It is political abandonment.
Veterans have made that point more clearly than many lawmakers. After an earlier House war powers vote, Common Defense, a grassroots organization of veterans and military families, said that “veterans understand the costs of war better than most Americans” and called congressional action essential to giving the public a voice. Supporting troops requires more than praising their sacrifice after they die. It requires telling them what the mission is, what limits govern it, what success looks like, and when it ends.
The House vote showed that opposition to unauthorized war is not entirely partisan. All 210 Democrats present joined Republicans Thomas Massie (Ky.), Warren Davidson (Ohio), Brian Fitzpatrick (Pa.), and Tom Barrett (Mich.). In the Senate, Republican Susan Collins (Maine) supported bringing the resolution forward, while Democratic Sen. John Fetterman (Pa.) voted with Republicans to block it.
But the larger story is institutional, not personal. Senators avoided a direct vote on whether to authorize or end the war. Procedural language cannot erase political responsibility. A senator who prevents Congress from considering restraint helps preserve the conditions under which the war continues.
The House resolution alone cannot stop the fighting. That makes Congress’ power over military funding the next real test. The White House has requested an $87.6 billion supplemental package, saying most of it would address urgent needs related to Operation Epic Fury. The request includes $67.1 billion for the Pentagon, with $21 billion of that amount designated for munitions. The Center for Strategic and International Studies estimates that about one-third of the entire package is driven by Iran war costs; the rest funds other administration priorities.
Lawmakers cannot credibly call a war unauthorized while financing its continuation without meaningful limits. Any new funding should prohibit offensive operations against Iran after a brief period for immediate force protection unless Congress passes a specific authorization. That authorization should define the enemy, mission, geographic scope, reporting requirements, and expiration date. Renewal should require another affirmative vote.
The burden must fall on those who want the war to continue. They should have to explain, publicly and repeatedly, why more Americans and Iranians must die and what political outcome those deaths are supposed to achieve.
Congressional authorization is not bureaucratic interference. It is the democratic process through which elected officials must tell the public why troops are being sent into danger. Trump owns the decision to wage and escalate this war. But lawmakers who block restraint, keep the money flowing, and refuse to demand a defined mission are not neutral observers. They are helping sustain a war they have never been willing to own.
Congress has not authorized Trump’s Iran war. Until lawmakers either define and limit the mission or stop paying for it, troops and civilians will remain trapped between a president claiming the power to continue and a legislature unwilling to take responsibility for ending it.
Keep ReadingShow Less
House Democrat Unveils Bill to Cut Off Funding for Trump's Iran War
"As more of our servicemembers are killed in Iran, and energy prices continue to skyrocket here at home, Congress cannot sit on its hands."
Jul 28, 2026
A Democratic lawmaker in the US House of Representatives on Tuesday introduced legislation that would cut off funding for President Donald Trump's illegal war with Iran.
In announcing the "No Funds for Illegal Wars Act," Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.) said that it was time for the legislature to take the next steps to end the unlawful conflict Trump started in February without congressional authorization.
"As more of our servicemembers are killed in Iran, and energy prices continue to skyrocket here at home, Congress cannot sit on its hands. We have voted to end this illegal war not once, but twice—and we need to enforce the law."
Larson emphasized that his bill would not merely end funding for the illegal Iran war, which has cost tens of billions of dollars and thousands of lives. The legislation, the Connecticut Democrat said, would also “block Donald Trump or any future president from waging war without explicit approval from Congress, as both the Constitution and War Powers Act require.”
Larson last week joined Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY) in filing a resolution that would require House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) to “initiate or intervene in litigation” to enforce the war powers resolution that passed in both chambers of Congress last month and compel the president to end the conflict.
Trump predicted that the Iran war would only last a few weeks when it began, but the conflict is now in its sixth month and the president last week said he was considering authorizing what he described as a "massive attack" on Iran that he vowed would be "bigger than ever before."
Keep ReadingShow Less
House Again Votes to Stop Trump’s Iran War—but GOP Senators and Fetterman Sink Similar Resolution
"We cannot allow this illegal, unconstitutional war in Iran to continue," said Rep. Pramila Jayapal, who introduced the House resolution.
Jul 23, 2026
For the second time in as many months, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives narrowly passed a war powers resolution directing President Donald Trump to end his illegal war on Iran, but later on Thursday GOP senators and Democrat John Fetterman blocked a similar measure in the upper chamber.
H.Con.Res.89, introduced by Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and sponsored by 15 Democrats and one Republican, passed by a vote of 214-208, with co-sponsor Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and three other GOP lawmakers—Reps. Tom Barrett (Mich.), Warren Davidson (Ohio), and Brian Fitzpatrick (Pa.)—breaking ranks to cast "yes" votes.
“Today’s bipartisan vote on my war powers resolution to end this war in Iran was a big victory for the vast majority of the American people who want President Trump to end this illegal war and focus on their lives right here at home," Jayapal said in a statement. "A majority of this Congress voted to end the war yet again, and sent yet another clear order to the president that Congress will not continue to tolerate this illegal war."
"The vote also put pressure on Republicans to stand up for their constituents and the Constitution," the congresswoman continued. "Out of respect for our US servicemembers, civilian lives in Iran and Lebanon, the American taxpayers, and our Constitution, we cannot allow this illegal, unconstitutional war in Iran to continue."
Massie said ahead of Thursday's vote: "American servicemen and women are dying, and gas and fertilizer prices are soaring. It’s time to end this war."
At least 18 US troops have been killed and more than 430 others have been wounded during the 145-day US-Israeli war of choice. Iran's Health Ministry said earlier this week that more than 3,500 Iranians, including at least 496 women and 384 children and infants, have been killed by US and Israeli attacks. More than 26,500 Iranians, including at least 4,000 women and 1,621 children, have been wounded.
Around 30 people have been killed by Iranian counterattacks targeting US-allied Mideast nations, while a simultaneous Israeli war on Lebanon has killed or wounded upward of 15,000 people, according to Lebanese officials.
"Trump needs to end his illegal war now," Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.) said on social media.
Jayapal said in her statement: “From the beginning, this war has had no clear mission, no strategy, no end goal. Congress has not been consulted. And hostilities have been driven over and over again by a president who won his election by promising to end forever wars. This administration has clearly gotten us into a war they have no clue how to get us out of."
Later on Thursday, US senators voted 47-49 against advancing a similar war powers resolution introduced by Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) crossed the aisle to vote with nearly all Democratic caucus members, while Fetterman (D-Pa.) joined all other present Republicans in voting against the measure. GOP Sens. Katie Britt (Alabama), Mitch McConnell (Ky.), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), and Rand Paul (Ky.) missed the vote.
"When are Senate Republicans going to stand up?" Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said on the chamber floor. "Senate Republicans lose credibility with the American people with every vote they take against ending Trump's war."
Minority Leader @SenSchumer (D-NY) urges GOP to support Iran war powers resolution: "When are Senate Republicans going to stand up? … Senate Republicans lose credibility with the American people with every vote they take against ending Trump's war." pic.twitter.com/XyCTq1TdKj
— CSPAN (@cspan) July 23, 2026
During his second term, Trump has ordered US military attacks or operations in Ecuador, Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen and a campaign of high-seas boat bombings in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean. The self-described "peace president" has ordered attacks on 11 countries through his two terms in office—the aforementioned nations, plus Afghanistan, Libya, and Pakistan during his first administration.
Trump has also threatened to attack, seize, or acquire by other means Canada, Colombia, Cuba, Greenland, and Mexico. He is also reportedly weighing strikes on Mali targeting al-Qaeda-affiliated militants.
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.
Congressional Democrats and legal experts have rejected Trump’s dubious argument that quitting his negotiated ceasefire with Iran 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.
The first war powers resolutions passed during Trump's presidency came in 2019, when the House and Senate ordered the president to end unauthorized US military involvement in the Saudi-led war in Yemen. The Senate subsequently failed to override Trump's veto of the directive.
Last month, both the House and Senate passed resolutions directing Trump to halt his war on Iran. The president has almost entirely ignored the directives, prompting Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY)—who authored both an unsuccessful war powers resolution in a bid to stop the US boat bombings and the successful Iran order passed last month—to say Thursday that he will try to sue the administration for failing to obey Congress.
"I'm dropping a resolution today... that we should be suing the administration for not following... the resolution that was passed in both the House and Senate," Meeks told reporters outside the Capitol, where lawmakers are set to go on summer recess.
"When we get back next week, I'm going to force a vote on that, so that we can now go to the courts and sue the administration for not following the will of Congress."
Keep ReadingShow Less
As Trump Ignores War Powers Votes, Groups Urge Congress to Sue to End Illegal Iran Assault
"Congress has already directed the removal of US armed forces under the War Powers Act, and the president must comply."
Jul 23, 2026
The US House of Representatives on Thursday passed a new war powers resolution aimed at forcing President Donald Trump to halt his illegal war with Iran without congressional authorization.
But with Trump showing every indication that he plans to escalate his unlawful assault on Iran despite lawmakers’ repeated expressions of disapproval, a large coalition of organizations is urging Congress to take more aggressive steps to end the war.
In a letter sent to members of Congress, the groups—including civil liberties, human rights, good governance, faith-based, anti-war, Iranian-American, veteran, and military family organizations—said that it was time to take the administration to court to "reaffirm Congress’s constitutional prerogatives" over the power to declare war.
The groups noted that the US Constitution explicitly gives the legislative branch war declaration powers, adding that the 1973 War Powers Act reasserted congressional control over decisions to commit American armed forces to combat in the wake of the Vietnam War.
Given that the Trump administration has blown off past war powers resolutions, the groups said, members of Congress should team up with "experienced constitutional litigators" to enforce the law.
"This may include helping to identify appropriate plaintiffs," the groups explained, "advancing House and Senate resolutions to explicitly authorize congressional litigation over the unlawful Iran War, or, in the House, calling for a vote of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group to authorize litigation."
The groups also urged lawmakers to deny Trump's request for an additional $87.6 billion in supplemental war funding and then enact legislation "to bar the administration from using funds to continue" the war.
"Congress has already directed the removal of US armed forces under the War Powers Act, and the president must comply," the groups concluded. "Our democracy, the American people, and particularly US servicemembers deserve a Congress that will fight for the rule of law and an end to the unauthorized Iran war."
Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY), ranking member of the House Foreign Relations Committee, indicated while talking with reporters outside the US Capitol on Thursday that he was prepared to take legal action to enforce the will of Congress to end the war.
"We should be suing the administration for not following the... privileged resolution that was passed in both the House and the Senate," said Meeks. "When we get back next week, I'm going to force a vote on that, so that we can now go to the courts and sue the administration for not following the will of Congress."
.@RepGregoryMeeks (D-NY) says he will try to sue the Trump administration for not adhering to the Iran war powers resolution: "We can now go to the courts and sue the administration for not following the will of Congress." pic.twitter.com/F3EV5QwwSS
— CSPAN (@cspan) July 23, 2026
Shortly after Meeks' remarks to reporters, the New York Democrat filed a resolution that would require House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) to "initiate or intervene in litigation" to enforce the war powers resolution.
In an interview with Axios published Thursday, Trump said that he was "close" to making a decision on whether to authorize what he described as a "massive attack" on Iran that he vowed would be "bigger than ever before."
Cavan Kharrazian, senior policy adviser at Demand Progress, which co-led the coalition letter, accused Trump of "insulting Congress, the Constitution, and the American people" with his defiance.
“Congress already voted to reassert its constitutional role as the arbiter of war," said Kharrazian, "now they must follow through by using every single tool they have to ensure that the president complies with the law."
Keep ReadingShow Less
As Trump Renews Assault on Iran, Dems Prepare Another War Powers Resolution
Congress already passed one resolution last month, but Trump has defied it, claiming that his latest attacks are part of a new war against Iran.
Jul 22, 2026
Democrats introduced another war powers resolution in the US House of Representatives on Wednesday that they hope will strengthen their efforts to stop President Donald Trump from continuing to escalate his war with Iran.
Both houses of Congress already passed a war powers resolution in June, but it was not signed by Trump and lacked the force of law.
Trump has refused to comply with its order to withdraw troops from hostilities in the region, claiming that his renewed attacks on Iran this month constitute a new conflict that resets the 60-day countdown before Congress can intervene.
According to Politico, Rep. Gregory Meeks (NY), the ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, expects the resolution to come to the floor for a vote on Thursday, just before Congress adjourns for a five-week summer recess.
The resolution, introduced by Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) on Wednesday, is expected to have the support of every Democrat, as well as Reps. Tom Barrett (R-Mich.), Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.), Warren Davidson (R-Ohio), and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), who voted for the last resolution.
A co-sponsor of the bill, Rep. Jason Crow (D-Col.), said on Wednesday that Democrats, as well as these "Republicans of courage and conscience," were united in their goal of sending "a message that this war has got to stop."
Jayapal said recent developments, including the deaths of four US soldiers over the past week, had raised the urgency of ending the war now.
"This war has killed 18 US service members, cost billions of taxpayer dollars, and displaced millions of civilians," she noted.
A new resolution may also strengthen a separate effort by Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.), who is planning to introduce legislation that would block any additional federal funding for attacks against Iran not authorized by Congress. He also said he was preparing a lawsuit challenging Trump's continuation of the war without congressional approval, which he has called "legally baseless."
As the administration requests tens of billions more in military spending in order to fund the war, Democrats in the Senate last week blocked debate on the annual National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).
The House passed the NDAA on Wednesday with limited Democratic support, though it did not contain the separate Iran War funding package.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'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 vote 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
See More
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