This week, the US Congress is considering several measures aimed at curbing President Donald Trump’s authority to expand military operations against Iran without congressional approval.
In the Senate, a resolution led by Senator Tim Kaine invokes the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which was designed to restrict presidential war-making authority. If adopted, it would require US forces to withdraw from hostilities against Iran unless Congress explicitly authorizes their continuation. Kaine emphasized, “The Constitution says we’re not supposed to be at war without a vote of Congress… The lives of our troops are at risk.”
In the House, two competing approaches are being debated. Representatives Ro Khanna (Democrat–California) and Thomas Massie (Republican–Kentucky) introduced a bipartisan resolution directing the president to remove US forces from Iran-related hostilities without congressional consent. A more cautious proposal, backed by centrists including Rep. Josh Gottheimer, calls for compliance with existing law and congressional consultation rather than an immediate withdrawal.
These moves follow coordinated US and Israeli strikes on Iranian military and political targets, which have reportedly resulted in American casualties and heightened fears of a wider regional conflict.
Democratic leaders have emphasized congressional oversight rather than outright disengagement. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer urged transparency from the administration, while House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries called for classified briefings and a formal vote, insisting on a clear national security objective and a plan to avoid a prolonged conflict. Progressive lawmakers, including Bernie Sanders and Jeff Merkley, have taken a more direct stance, declaring “no war with Iran.”
However, divisions persist within both parties. Senator John Fetterman dismissed the Senate resolution as unnecessary, while Senate Republicans largely support the president, with Tom Cotton predicting strong GOP backing. Rep. Massie argued that the conflict contradicts Trump’s “America First” foreign policy.
Concerns have also been raised over the clarity of the administration’s objectives. Senator Mark Warner noted multiple shifts in the stated goals of the operation, leaving uncertainty about what constitutes an endgame.
Even if Congress passes a resolution, overriding a presidential veto would require a two-thirds majority in both chambers — a challenging prospect given Republican control. The debate recalls 2020’s effort to limit presidential war powers following the strike that killed Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, when Congress passed S.J.Res. 68, which ultimately did not constrain executive action.
With the conflict evolving and partisan divisions deep, the upcoming votes will test Congress’s ability to assert its constitutional role in decisions over war and peace.