The U.S. and Israel launched attacks against Iran over the weekend, strikes that have already claimed the first American casualties, and Congress is now racing to vote on bipartisan war powers resolutions meant to limit President Trump's military operations before the conflict widens further.
The votes are still expected mid-week. If made law, the measures would block further U.S. military action in Iran without congressional approval under the 1973 War Powers Resolution. But Congress would likely need to override a Trump veto to pass them, and the math for that is not in its favor.
Administration officials, including the CIA director, the defense secretary, and the secretary of state, are expected to brief all lawmakers on Tuesday, according to the White House. The briefing comes as President Trump, in a video posted online Sunday, said the U.S. would continue its attacks in the Middle East until objectives are met, without specifying what those objectives are.
The most revealing part of this story isn't the vote itself. It's who's breaking ranks, and why.
Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., gave the House war powers resolution a 40% to 60% chance of advancing out of the House this week. His concern wasn't Republicans. It was his own party:
It depends if we can keep several Democrats in line.
Khanna then made a political argument dressed up as a moral one:
But I believe that this is a disastrous vote for any Democrat — to vote for Donald Trump's war in the Middle East.
Notice the framing. It's not about constitutional principle for Khanna. It's about making sure Democrats don't hand Trump a political win by supporting military action. The quiet part is loud.
Rep. Josh Gottheimer, D-N.J., has long opposed the Iran war powers resolutions for fear they would "restrict the flexibility needed" in military operations. He didn't immediately respond to a request for comment about his vote. That silence tells you where the fault lines run: Democrats who still take national security seriously versus Democrats who see every military engagement primarily as a messaging problem.
Then there's Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., who plans to vote against the resolution entirely. His assessment was blunt:
It's not necessary. Honestly, though, the entire thing, it's really an empty gesture.
He's not wrong about the math, NPR reported. Reaching the two-thirds majority needed in both chambers to override a veto is a near impossibility in the current political environment. When even Fetterman is waving off the effort, the resolution looks less like a constitutional stand and more like a press release with a roll call.
Congress passed the War Powers Resolution during the Vietnam War in 1973, and it has been invoked and debated in almost every major military engagement since. The tension between executive authority and congressional war powers is as old as the republic. But Democrats have a pattern of discovering their constitutional prerogatives only when a Republican is in the Oval Office.
This isn't even the first time this Congress has tried and failed on this front:
Two swings. Two misses. And now a third attempt, this time with American lives already on the line.
Sen. Tom Cotton, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, offered a straightforward prediction:
I suspect you'll see overwhelming support from elected Republicans in the Congress.
Support, that is, for the president's authority to conduct military operations. The GOP caucus understands that hamstringing a commander-in-chief during active combat operations is not a constitutional principle. It's a strategic gift to Tehran.
The lone notable Republican dissent comes from Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., one of the sponsors of the House resolution. Massie framed his opposition to the conflict in terms of "America First," arguing the engagement doesn't serve that standard. Massie has consistently been one of the few Republicans to vote against some Trump administration priorities. He's principled, but he's an outlier, not a trend line.
Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., a cosponsor of the Senate resolution, urged Congress to return to Washington earlier than scheduled:
The Constitution says we're not supposed to be at war without a vote of Congress.
This is important. The lives of our troops are at risk. We ought to come back to Washington right away and vote on this.
Kaine's constitutional argument has surface appeal. But it evaporates under scrutiny. It remains unclear how or if any successful war powers resolution would immediately change the reality on the ground. American servicemembers are already in harm's way. Strikes are already underway. The first casualties have already been suffered.
Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., a Navy pilot and captain, went further:
Trump has no plan to avoid escalation into a wider conflict that puts more servicemembers in harm's way.
Kelly's military credentials lend weight to his words, but the claim assumes a conclusion the briefings haven't yet delivered. Congress hasn't even received the classified briefing scheduled for Tuesday. Declaring the president has "no plan" before hearing the plan is politics, not oversight.
Strip away the rhetoric, and here's what's left: a vote that almost certainly cannot survive a presidential veto, offered by a coalition that cannot hold its own members together, timed after military operations have already begun. The resolution doesn't stop a war. It doesn't bring anyone home. It doesn't change the calculus in Tehran.
What it does is give certain members of Congress a line on their record and a clip for the next campaign ad.
American troops are in the fight. The question Congress should be asking isn't whether the president needs their permission. It's whether they're prepared to back the men and women they sent into uniform.
