With the U.S. casualty count rising and no clear sign of when the conflict may end, the Senate is poised to vote as early as Tuesday on a resolution to halt President Donald Trump’s ongoing attack on Iran.
The vote is expected to be incredibly close, with most Democrats voting to restrain Trump’s military authority in Iran and nearly all Republicans voting to give the president wide latitude — though there is likely to be at least one member in each party who votes with the other side.
Still, the effort is at most symbolic.
A war powers resolution would still need to clear the House — far from a guaranteed thing — and even if it somehow were adopted, it would almost certainly fall far short of veto proof majorities in both chambers. That means that even if Congress approves the measure, the president can ignore it.
Follow MS NOW’s live blog for the latest updates and analysis on the war in Iran and its impact beyond the Middle East.
But the two lawmakers leading the bipartisan resolution — Sens. Tim Kaine, D-Va., and Rand Paul, R-Ky. — argue it’s essential lawmakers go on the record.
Both argue the president is violating the Constitution by launching a sustained attack on Iran — what Trump himself has called a “war” — without congressional approval, and both think Trump needs to answer questions about the entanglement before lawmakers give him carte blanche.
On Monday, Kaine said he was concerned that nobody in the Trump administration “wants Congress to get anywhere near this because they just want to do stuff unbothered by the Article One branch.”
In a social media post Saturday, Paul wrote that the Constitution “conferred the power to declare or initiate war to Congress for a reason, to make war less likely.”
“My oath of office is to the Constitution, so with studied care, I must oppose another Presidential war,” Paul said.
Specifically, the Senate resolution directs “the President to remove the United States Armed Forces from hostilities within or against Iran, unless explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or a specific authorization for use of military force.”
Democrats in the House and Senate were already prepared to force votes this week on war powers resolutions, as a response to the dramatic buildup of American military hardware in the Middle East by the Trump administration.
But then, over the weekend, the White House launched the attack — only heightening the stakes of this week’s votes.
There could be defectors from both parties. Several Republicans on Monday declined to say how they would vote, wanting to hear from administration officials in a closed door briefing scheduled for Tuesday afternoon.
Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., for instance, told reporters he would determine how to proceed “largely based on what we hear in the briefings.”
Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, said she wanted to hear about “the threat and the purpose and the scope going forward” of America’s military engagement in the region.
And Sen. Todd Young, R-Ind., likewise deferred to the upcoming briefing.
Others were a firm “no” on the resolution, including Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Ark.
Notably, Hawley was one of five Republicans to vote earlier this year to advance a similar war powers resolution aimed at curtailing military action in Venezuela, following the U.S. raid and capture of President Nicolás Maduro. But on the final vote, he and one other Republican — Young — reversed course, voting “no” and killing the legislation.
Both faced intense lobbying from Trump and the White House.
This go-around, Hawley argues the administration has been “in compliance with the war power statute” in its handling of the Iran attacks, citing outreach from the administration to Congress and the lack of — at least, so far — U.S. troops on the ground.
While a war powers resolution is designed to constrain the president, there are other actions Congress can take — including an AUMF, or Authorization for the Use of Military Force. And several Republicans didn’t rule out the possibility that they could have to take such a vote down the road.
But for these Republicans, the question of whether Trump has the authority to conduct military operations in Iran boils down to a matter of scope and length.
Tillis, for instance, said that if this is a longer-term conflict, Congress would have to weigh in.
“If it’s a Venezuela — done, out by the end of week — maybe one thing, because you’d be passing a war powers resolution after the conflict’s over,” Tillis said. “If there’s an intent to be there longer term, then clearly Congress has a role to play in that.”
Sen. Mike Rounds, R-S.D., said that while it’s not “anticipated” that U.S. engagement with Iran could last more than a few weeks — at least that’s what the White House at the moment is forecasting — “things could change, and at that point, we’ll have to reassess.”
And Hawley said if troops were deployed on the ground in Iran, “that’d be a different story. I think authorization would be required for that.”
Of course, from a strictly constitutional perspective, these distinctions are far from what the founders intended.
While the president has some latitude to use the military, Trump made offensive strikes against a sovereign nation and is keeping open the possibility of a prolonged presence. The Constitution explicitly only gives Congress the authority to declare war.
But with so many Republicans loyal to the president, it’s unlikely lawmakers force Trump to come to Congress to get approval.
Even though the Senate’s resolution, if adopted, would carry the force of law, a similar piece of legislation in the House — also teed up for a vote as soon as this week — would not. That’s because the House measure set to be considered is only a “concurrent” resolution, which doesn’t require the president’s signature.
House rules don’t give joint resolutions — which carry the weight of law — “privileged” status, meaning they can only be considered if House GOP leadership agrees to put them up for a vote on the floor. There’s little chance of that happening.
So for Democrats to quickly force a vote on any war powers resolution, they had to use a “concurrent resolution.”
Democrats, alternatively, could go around House leadership by pursuing a discharge petition to force a vote on a joint resolution, but that would require Republican signatures and is not a quick process.
And if they somehow succeeded in those endeavors, they would still need to muster that veto-proof majority.
In short, as long as the vast majority of Republicans stick with Trump, there’s little Democrats can do to restrain the president’s military operations.
Jack Fitzpatrick and Mychael Schnell contributed to this report.
Kevin Frey is a congressional reporter for MS NOW.