WASHINGTON - The U.S. Senate on Tuesday approved a concurrent resolution instructing President Donald Trump to halt U.S. military operations against Iran, a move that follows a similar measure passed by the House earlier this month and underscored rising congressional unease with the conflict.
The Senate tally was 50-48 in favor of the war powers resolution. The measure had already won passage in the House of Representatives and represents the first time since passage of the 1973 War Powers Resolution that both chambers of Congress have backed a resolution directing the president to remove U.S. armed forces from hostilities.
Supporters of the resolution said the vote reflected concern across party lines about a conflict that began on February 28 when the United States and Israel launched an attack on Iran. Backers framed the concurrent resolution as a tool intended by Congress in the 1973 law to end military operations without the need for presidential approval.
Critics and White House officials characterized the outcome differently, calling the vote symbolic and legally uncertain. A White House official said the resolutions do not go to the president for signature and therefore carry no force of law, adding the measure passed only because two Republicans were absent. The official also said the resolution directs the president to remove U.S. forces from hostilities that the White House says were terminated by a ceasefire on April 7.
President Trump publicly criticized the vote on Tuesday, calling it "poorly timed and meaningless" and accusing those who voted in favor of providing "comfort" to Iran and of making his job "more difficult".
Constitutional and legal questions
Experts and lawmakers emphasized the unresolved legal status of a concurrent war powers resolution that has passed both chambers. Legal scholars point to a lack of precedent: no war powers resolution had previously been approved by both the House and Senate. A 1983 Supreme Court ruling was cited as indicating such a measure must be submitted for the president's signature or veto to have legal effect.
Some legal observers expect a court challenge if the administration ignores the resolution. In the words of Scott Anderson, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and senior editor of the online legal publication Lawfare, "The executive branch will likely ignore it on constitutional grounds, and it’s not clear who might have standing to sue to enforce it."
Representative Gregory Meeks of New York, the sponsor of the resolution in the House, said he considers the measure binding and pledged to pursue all available legal avenues to ensure the administration complies. Senators and House Democrats reiterated that the Constitution gives Congress, not the president, the authority to take the country to war. "Congress has to own this responsibility," said Democratic Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia in urging support for the resolution.
Political dynamics and vote breakdown
The Senate vote largely followed party lines, but four Republicans joined all but one Democrat in supporting the measure. The Republican senators who voted in favor were Susan Collins of Maine, Rand Paul of Kentucky, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. Democratic Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania cast a vote against the resolution. Two Republican senators were absent and did not vote, among them Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and David McCormick of Pennsylvania.
In the House, the measure passed by a 215-208 margin, with four Republicans joining every Democrat in support. Those earlier results mirrored growing fractures within the president's party on several high-profile issues ahead of the mid-term elections in November.
Republicans maintain narrow majorities in both chambers of Congress, but a handful of Republican lawmakers have broken with the president on select matters in recent months. The article noted that some Republicans resisted a $1.8 billion "anti-weaponization" fund proposed to compensate allies the president said were targeted by federal authorities, and they also stalled a $70 billion bill intended to fund an immigration enforcement push.
Policy implications and next steps
While the concurrent resolution is likely to be viewed as largely symbolic by the White House, its passage complicates the administration's choices. The vote comes as the administration is expected to request tens of billions of dollars from Congress to finance the war effort. Support for the resolution in Congress could create political pressure on the president not to resume hostilities, an action he has at times suggested he might take if negotiations with Iran falter.
Lawmakers also noted Congress retains authority to review and vote on any eventual peace agreement with Tehran if it affects Iran’s nuclear program, referencing a 2015 law enacted during negotiations over a nuclear deal. Senate Republican Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota said he expected Congress would review and vote on any Iran peace deal that emerges.
Democratic lawmakers signaled plans for additional votes on war powers measures intended to force Republicans to record their positions publicly. The political debate over war powers and congressional authority is shaping up to be a sustained issue through the fall, with potential implications for appropriations, oversight, and the balance of authority between the legislative and executive branches.
Public opinion
Polling data released concurrent with the vote indicated limited public support for the war. A Reuters/Ipsos poll cited in reports showed only one in four Americans believed the war against Iran was worth its costs, and a majority of those polled worried a truce with Tehran was unlikely to hold.
That public sentiment appears to have influenced some lawmakers' willingness to join across the aisle in supporting the resolution, as members weigh political and fiscal risks ahead of the mid-term elections.
Reporting on votes, legal commentary and public opinion captured the contours of an unfolding constitutional and political debate over war powers, congressional authority and the administration's strategy toward Iran.