Washington, D.C. – The US Senate failed to pass a resolution seeking to stop US President Donald Trump’s war against Iran.
The latest war powers resolution failed 47 to 52 in a procedural vote, marking another major setback for supporters of restricting Trump’s military activities abroad and underscoring Republicans’ embrace of the president’s campaign.
Recommended stories
list of 3 itemsend of list
A separate resolution will be voted on Thursday in the U.S. House of Representatives, but it also faces tough odds.
Senate lawmakers had spent the day arguing for and against asserting Congress’ powers to authorize or end Trump’s military actions against Iran.
Supporters of the resolution say Trump exceeded his constitutional authority by launching a war alongside Israel. Under Article II of the U.S. Constitution, presidents can only launch such attacks in self-defense in response to an immediate threat. Otherwise, Congress has the sole power to declare war.
Speaking on the Senate floor, Senator Tim Kaine argued that, “even in a classified environment,” the Trump administration “could not present any evidence, none that the United States was under an imminent threat of attack by Iran.”
“You can’t stand up and say, this is a pinprick that doesn’t lead to the level that would be characterized as war,” Kaine said. “You can’t stand up and say: This is done and there are no troops involved in hostilities against Iran.”
Since launching its military offensive on February 28, the Trump administration has offered a carousel of justifications for why a war was necessary now.
Trump has suggested that Iran was trying to rebuild its nuclear program, which he said was “destroyed” in attacks last year. He also said Iran was seeking to develop a long-range missile to attack the United States.
Meanwhile, Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters that Israel was planning to attack Iran, which would likely have led to retaliation against US assets in the region. Trump later contradicted the claim, saying that Iran was the one planning an imminent attack on Israel.
To back up those claims, the Trump administration has also sought to frame all of Iran’s military and nuclear energy programs since the 1979 Islamic Revolution as an immediate threat to the United States.
Several Republicans spoke out against the resolution, arguing that the past 47 years of saber-rattling by Iran justified the president’s military action.
The Constitution, according to Senator James Risch, “clearly gives the president not only the right, but also the duty, as well as his oath to protect the United States.”
Risch also highlighted Iran’s efforts to rebuild its nuclear energy assets after a US attack in June last year, carried out as part of a 12-day war led by Israel.
“The commander in chief ordered this strike because of the increase in manufacturing of long- and medium-range missiles, and after (Iran attempted to) restart the nuclear program that was decimated in the 12-day war,” Risch said.
The United States and Iran had been in the midst of negotiations to reduce Iran’s nuclear program in the run-up to this month’s war, but Risch dismissed those efforts as performative.
“This whole time they had us sitting at the table, dragging on and chatting about negotiations that were going nowhere,” he told the Senate, calling on his fellow lawmakers to reject Wednesday’s resolution.
The vote, which split largely along partisan lines except for one Republican and one Democrat who broke ranks, was the latest in a series of war powers resolutions that failed in Congress. Since the June 21 attack, Congress has introduced several measures to prevent Trump from carrying out military campaigns in Iran and Venezuela, without success.
Under the War Powers Act of 1973, U.S. presidents must seek congressional approval after committing U.S. troops in military actions for more than 60 days.
Earlier on Wednesday, Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth argued that the US operation had just begun and that more US assets were being sent to the region.
The duration and scope of the conflict remains unclear, although Trump himself has projected it could last “four to five weeks.” Still, Risch expressed optimism that the conflict would be resolved quickly.
“This is going to end, and it’s going to end quickly. This is not a forever war, in fact, not even close to it,” Risch said. “This is going to end very quickly.”
Even if Wednesday’s effort had passed, the Senate war powers resolution would have faced an uphill battle before it could become law.
Both chambers would have needed to approve the resolution for it to go to the president’s desk for his final signature, but even then, Trump could have vetoed the measure.
Only a two-thirds majority in both chambers can override a presidential veto.
Still, advocates have long argued that such resolutions force lawmakers to confront important questions about the limits of presidential power, even if they are unlikely.
They also give voters a reason to petition their elected officials and express their concerns about the war.
“Although the outcome did not pass, this moment underscores a central truth: Congress must continually reaffirm its constitutional role to check the executive branch and prevent endless wars,” said Hassan El-Tayyab, legislative director for Middle East policy at the Friends of National Legislation Committee, a Washington-based nonprofit.
“Our founders warned that unchecked authority leads to unchecked conflict. Senators and representatives must continue to force votes to curb U.S. military involvement in unauthorized wars.”
Cavan Kharrazian, senior political adviser at the advocacy group Demand Progress, also noted that congressional votes can help inform voters about their representatives’ positions on key issues.
This, in turn, can have political consequences at the polls, especially in an election year.
“The American people will remember who voted to continue an illegal and unnecessary war,” Kharrazian said.
“Every senator who voted against the war powers resolution also voted against the wishes of the American people and against the safety of the service members they are sworn to protect. The stakes are clear and there is no more time for political games.”
