

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
"Every day that we do nothing, 11 more Lebanese children are killed or injured by the Israeli military in this US-supported invasion."
House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries helped Republicans tank Rep. Rashida Tlaib’s war powers resolution to limit US military involvement in Lebanon on Thursday, holding up the effort to curb the conflict for at least another several weeks.
Despite Israel’s invasion of Lebanon pushing deeper, with more than 3,500 people killed and 1.2 million displaced since early March, the Michigan Democrat's resolution was defeated in a 324-92 vote, with a large number in her own party joining Jeffries (D-NY) and the Republican majority against it.
In a joint statement shortly ahead of the vote on Tlaib's resolution, House Minority Leader Jeffries of New York, along with Whip Katherine Clark (D-Mass.), and Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.), said: “We stand with the Lebanese people, the government of Lebanon, and the Lebanese Armed Forces in their efforts to live peacefully and defeat Hezbollah." The statement included no mention of Israel.
The lawmakers said they’d support a different resolution introduced by Tlaib on Wednesday, which was crafted in tandem with Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY), the ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
That resolution likewise required President Donald Trump to remove US forces “from any hostilities in Lebanon” within seven days of passage. But it also added the caveat that it could not be construed to "prevent or limit security cooperation with the Lebanese Armed Forces."
Jeffries, Clark, and Aguilar said, "There are no US servicemembers involved in combat operations or hostilities in Lebanon."
However, supporters of Tlaib's original measure have noted that the US military is heavily involved in Israel's actions in the country without having boots on the ground.
"The US is actively cooperating with Israel on coordinating strikes, intelligence sharing, and planning, including Trump green-lighting major attacks on Lebanon multiple times," Janet Abou-Elias, a researcher at the Democratizing Foreign Policy Project at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, told Common Dreams.
While the resolution's passage wouldn't "end US involvement overnight," she said, "it fundamentally changes the landscape of accountability" by giving opponents of US collaboration a legal mechanism to conduct oversight.
And while the resolution would not cut off US military aid to Israel, Abou-Elias said Israel could continue its occupation "only for a limited period of time" without US assistance.
"Israel would be absorbing losses while also draining its broader manpower and firepower reserves," she said. "At some point, the cost-benefit of continuing their occupation without US support would shift."
Because war powers resolutions are privileged, they can be forced to a vote even without approval from the Republican majority.
However, committees are given 15 days to act before a resolution is forced onto the floor, followed by three days for a House vote. This means it could take until June 21 for the new version to pass. The Senate would also have to pass it, and it would then take another week to go into effect.
"The people of Lebanon can't wait another month for Congress to act," Tlaib said on social media following news that the proposal would be voted down. "Every day that we do nothing, 11 more Lebanese children are killed or injured by the Israeli military in this US-supported invasion. Congress must pass today's Lebanon war powers resolution."
Abou-Elias said that despite the setback, Tlaib's introduction of the measure was not a wasted effort.
"Even if the resolution doesn't pass today, the vote forces every representative on record on the US participation in the attacks on Lebanon," she said. "That alone has value."
Though resolution failed, proponents of the measure championed the 92 lawmakers who did vote in favor.
“Congress’s failure to act has thus far enabled multiple Israeli invasions of Lebanon and war crimes against Lebanese civilians,” said Beth Miller, political director of Jewish Voice for Peace Action, in a statement. “Tonight’s vote demonstrated that a growing block of members of Congress are beginning to listen to their constituents. Americans don’t want the US involved in atrocities against Lebanese, Palestinians, Iranians, or anyone. This vote is just the beginning, and we will continue to organize until all of Congress acts to end these atrocities.”
"Now it’s time for the Senate to act," said CodePink's Medea Benjamin. "Let’s keep the pressure on and send this resolution to Trump’s desk. No more illegal wars. No more blank checks for militarism."
Raucous applause erupted in the House of Representatives on Wednesday after US lawmakers passed a war powers resolution aimed at ending Donald Trump's illegal war of choice against Iran—although skeptics cautioned that the measure will likely have little impact on the actions of a president who has habitually shown utter contempt for the rule of law.
House lawmakers voted 215-208, with 7 legislators not voting, in favor of H.Con.Res.86, introduced in April by Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY) and cosponsored by Reps. James Himes (D-Conn.), Adam Smith (D-Wash.), Gabe Amo (D-RI), Maggie Goodlander (D-NH), and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.).
Every Democrat present voted for the resolution, while three Republicans—Reps. Tom Barrett (Mich.), Warren Davidson (Ohio), and Brian Fitzpatrick (Pa.)—broke ranks with their GOP colleagues and joined Massie in voting to approve the measure, which directs Trump to "remove United States armed forces from hostilities with Iran."
“We are trapped in a war that won’t end because an incompetent president launched it thinking of only his own ego while failing to prepare for the consequences,” Meeks, the ranking member on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said during floor debate ahead of Wednesday's vote. “Diplomacy is the only exit from this, not more bombing, not more bluster.”
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 limiting 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.
It's been 95 days since the US and Israel launched their war on Iran, which followed last summer's separate bombing campaigns by both allies. Since then, more than 3,400 Iranians—many of them civilians—have been killed and over 26,000 others wounded by airstrikes, while Iranian counterattacks have killed 13 US troops, 26 Israelis, and over 20 people in Gulf Arab states aligned with the US.
House lawmakers had tried and failed to pass Iran war powers resolutions on three previous occasions. Last month, after four US Senate Republicans helped Democrats advance one of the resolutions, GOP leadership in the House canceled two subsequent votes on the measure.
“Since President Trump’s illegal war of choice on Iran began, I have been extremely clear over and over again that Congress alone has the power to declare war," Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.)—who did not vote Wednesday because she was in India due to a family health emergency—said in a statement. "This war has had disastrous effects for the American people and for the world in the nearly 100 days since Trump began it without congressional approval."
Jayapal continued:
"Waged with absolutely no imminent threat and no endgame, this war has already killed 13 US service members and injured many more; killed thousands of civilians in Iran and Lebanon, and displaced millions more; wasted billions in US taxpayer dollars that should have been spent on lowering healthcare and housing costs for Americans; and all while causing gas prices and grocery costs to skyrocket.
"The simple truth is that the American people are paying the price for Trump’s lawlessness," Jayapal added. “Every day that this war continues is a violation of our Constitution."
Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-NY) asserted that "our victory—while monumental—does not change the truth that this war never should have began, and never would have began, had the president not disgraced America and our laws to ensure that it did."
Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) said on social media: "The American people are tired of presidents abusing their power by spending billions of our taxpayer dollars on unnecessary wars. I urge the Senate to quickly pass this bill to end Trump’s illegal war in Iran."
Civil society groups opposed to the war applauded Wednesday's vote, which Medea Benjamin, co-founder of the peace group CodePink, called a "total rebuke of Trump."
"After 95 days of illegal war, Congress is finally enacting the will of the people, who overwhelmingly oppose President Trump’s disastrous war on Iran," Eric Eikenberry, government relations director at Win Without War, said in a statement.
"While congressional action is welcome, it is woefully late. Congress should not have taken over three months to pass a resolution that would force Trump to end this war," he continued. "Their delay has left millions of people struggling amidst unnecessary, unacceptable human and economic consequences."
"Lawmakers who've placed their loyalty to Trump over acting to determine when and whether the United States goes to war have failed both their constituents and their constitutional duty," Eikenberry added.
Naveed Shah, political director of the veterans' group Common Defense, said following the vote, "Veterans understand the costs of war better than most Americans, which is why we commend the Republicans who joined Democrats on this vote and showed the kind of courage and independence this moment demands."
"This was an important step toward ending a dangerous war and ensuring that the American people have a voice through their elected representatives," Shah added. "It is long past time to put guardrails on this brazen president, who launched us into an illegal war with Iran."
Alix Fraser, vice president of advocacy at Issue One, a group dedicated to reducing the role of money in politics, said in a statement that “today’s vote is a huge win for the Constitution and for the American people."
"The House finally had the political willpower to stand up to the president’s unconstitutional war," Fraser added. "Americans should celebrate this massive victory, but have every right to feel frustrated that it took this long for Congress to work on behalf of the people. That must change. Our democracy will not survive if Congress fails to uphold its responsibility to check executive power at this critical juncture."
“Every day that this war continues is a violation of our Constitution.”
Some observers noted that Wednesday's vote is likely to be largely symbolic, pointing to Trump's veto—and the Senate's failure to overturn it—of a 2019 bipartisan war powers resolution directing him to end US military support for the Saudi-led war in Yemen.
Still, lawmakers and advocates urged the Senate to pass the Iran resolution to uphold the rule of law and force Trump's hand.
"Ending this war is a moral imperative," said Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.).
Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) implored upper chamber lawmakers to "immediately follow suit and act to end this war."
Rep. Melanie Stansbury (D-NM) posted on Bluesky: "Now it’s time to pass the Senate. The power to declare war has been with Congress. Now let’s get it done and end this war!"
Benjamin said: "Now it’s time for the Senate to act. Let’s keep the pressure on and send this resolution to Trump’s desk. No more illegal wars. No more blank checks for militarism."
"The fact that 'Democratic leadership' hides behind blind quotes is evidence they know how unpopular their opposition is," said one foreign policy critic.
Rep. Delia Ramirez called on her fellow Democrats to "stop making excuses and act" to stop a war in Lebanon, as many refuse to go on the record about whether they'll support a war powers resolution that would halt US military participation in Israel's escalating occupation of the country.
Axios reported on Wednesday that some Democrats are "fuming" about having to take a vote on a resolution introduced by Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), which would require the US to end unauthorized military cooperation with Israel in Lebanon within seven days of being passed. The resolution would need Republican support to pass the GOP-controlled House.
Israel's assault on Lebanon, which began in March, has resulted in the deaths of more than 3,500 people. With forced evacuation orders that have led to the expulsion of more than 1.2 million people from their homes, Israel has systematically razed dozens of villages across the south of the country where leaders have expanded their military "combat zone" further north to the Zahrani River.
"Every day that we do not act to stop the assault on Lebanon, we enable another genocide," Ramirez (D-Ill.) said. "The War Powers Resolution is targeted to end Netanyahu and Trump's war crimes."
Anti-war activists supporting Tlaib’s measure—which has 17 Democratic cosponsors—have described it as a way to force Democratic legislators skittish about their party’s growing anger toward Israel to go on the record about where they stand on the country's actions in Lebanon.
One unnamed House Democrat told Axios that "people are not happy" that Tlaib "is making people take this vote."
Citing multiple unnamed sources, the outlet reported that the top Democrats on the House Foreign Affairs, Armed Services and Intelligence Committees—Reps. Greg Meeks (D-NY), Adam Smith (D-Wash.), and Jim Himes (D-Conn.)—are also "on the fence." Another unnamed House Democrat was quoted as saying that their hesitation will likely make others in the party reluctant to jump on board.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) said of the two-page resolution that he hadn't "taken a look at it yet."
Axios quotes other anonymous Democrats—one of whom said they are “probably a ‘no’” and another who angrily remarked that the resolution “does nothing to advance a solution.”
The outlet described Democrats’ hesitation as stemming in part from the fact that “there is no indication the US is planning imminent, large-scale ground operations in Lebanon.”
But anti-war groups demanding passage of the resolution have made the point that even without boots on the ground, the US is still intimately involved in Israel's decision-making, with President Donald Trump reportedly giving the "green light" on major operations: These have included Israel's decision to invade Lebanon in March as well as its assault on Beirut in April which killed over 250 people and tanked US negotiations with Iran.
A policy roundup published Tuesday by the Institute for Middle East Understanding, urging the House to pass the resolution, said "Israel is using US-provided weapons and bulldozers to flatten the southern part of the country and to potentially permanently displace 600,000 people. Israel has already used bulldozers, likely provided by the US, to destroy homes and infrastructure in the area."
Aside from continuing to provide direct military aid to Israel, the US is also closely involved in intelligence sharing and coordination that has led to Israeli strikes on specific targets. In a letter sent to Adm. Bradley Cooper last month, some senators raised the possibility that, without approval from Congress, these actions could violate the War Powers Act.
In an email sent to Democratic staffers Tuesday, obtained by Common Dreams, the anti-war group Just Foreign Policy said that Trump's reported intervention to tell Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to call off strikes on Beirut earlier this week was the latest example demonstrating "how Trump is engaged in an unprecedented, high-level command and coordination over the Israeli offensive in Lebanon" in violation of the War Powers Resolution of 1973.
The email also pointed out that "a ceasefire in Lebanon is key to peace with Iran" because "Iranian officials have made clear that a full ceasefire in Lebanon is a necessary precondition for diplomacy with the US to advance."
Note the sources who oppose it
"numerous lawmakers and aides"
"one senior House Democrat"
"Dem leadership"
"second senior House Democrat"
"another House Democrat"
"a fourth House Democrat"
ALL anonymous.
Everyone FOR it put their name on their quotes. What does this tell you? https://t.co/XIIHkvF2hF
— Adam Johnson (@adamjohnsonCHI) June 3, 2026
Polling from the Arab American Institute in April found that by about a two-to-one margin, American voters believe the US should do more to pressure Israel to stop bombing and leave southern Lebanon. Sixty-five percent of Democrats said the US should pressure Israel to accept a ceasefire, while just 17% said no and 18% were unsure.
Adam Johnson, a journalist and prominent US foreign policy critic, noted on social media that while Ramirez and Tlaib went on the record to voice their support for the measure, the Democrats in opposition were doing so under a shroud of anonymity.
"The fact that 'Democratic leadership' hides behind blind quotes is evidence they know how unpopular their opposition is," he said.
"If...leadership has objections to the Lebanon war powers resolution, then they can openly come out against it," he added. "Instead they're laundering their 'reservations' through anonymous leaks. Curious!"
While the Axios report portrays Tlaib as the cause of a rift in the Democratic Party, Johnson emphasized that "Tlaib's bill is the overwhelming majority position among Dems by almost 4-to-1," adding that "the 'division' is between Dem voters and pro-Israel party leaders."
Janet Abou-Elias, a researcher at the Democratizing Foreign Policy Project at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, said that the Democrats "hedging" on the war powers vote were still taking a side.
"You'd be going on record enabling an unauthorized war that has killed over 3,433 Lebanese people," she said. "US weapons. US intelligence. Zero congressional approval."