The GOP-led House once again rejected an effort to curtail President Donald Trump’s war with Iran on Thursday, rejecting a war powers resolution for the second time.
The vote, which came more than six weeks after Trump first launched the attack on the Islamic Republic, was 213-214 — a tighter margin than last month’s attempt at tying the president’s hands.
All but one Democrat, Rep. Jared Golden, D-Maine, backed the effort. (Four Democrats broke ranks last month.) And just one Republican bucked the president to vote with Democrats: Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky.
On Thursday, floor debate over the resolution turned heated when Republicans questioned the patriotism of Democrats in Congress.
“My Democrat colleagues really want America to lose,” Rep. Brian Mast, R-Fla., chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said during the floor debate.
He repeatedly levied the accusation, saying Democrats were engaged in “pure politics.” Earlier in the debate, Mast noted former President Joe Biden struck Iranian-backed militias in Iraq and that Democrats never pushed for a war powers vote. (At the time, the Biden administration cited the 2001 and 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force.)
But Mast pointed to the 13 Americans who have already been killed during the Iran war, saying Democrats “want to put more support into supporting Ukraine in a conflict where no American has been killed yet.”
“When it comes to Iran, who has been killing Americans, nothing. Crickets. Pure politics,” Mast said.
Democrats countered it was the United States and Israel who started hostilities in Iran and that Trump was conducting, as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., dubbed it, “an illegal and disastrous war in Iran.”
“They provided no rationale to the American people. They sought no legal authority from Congress, and they have descended our world and our global economy into chaos,” Ocasio-Cortez said. “And that was just the beginning.”
She noted Trump threatened “acts of genocide” and that lawmakers would now get a say over whether they could “exercise our power to stop this chaos of whether we sanction it.”
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., took issue with many of the GOP floor speeches offered Thursday, saying Republicans could “argue the merits of your position” without attacking Democrats’ patriotism.
“You question the patriotism of Democratic members of Congress?” Jeffries asked. “There are patriots on both sides of this conflict, of this issue.”
Jeffries named a number of combat veterans serving in the Democratic caucus, saying, “The most patriotic thing that we can do is stand up to ensure that our men and women in uniform aren’t being recklessly sent into a costly war of choice.”
“Stop the ad hominem attacks, which aren’t a sign of strength,” he said.
Mast responded that Democrats were “deserving of ad hominem attacks.”
“When they come down here and try to say something about service members killed, but didn’t take the time to learn a thing about them — learn their names, where they’re from, but just want a number,” he said. “You’re deserving of an ad hominem attack.”
Mast singled out Jeffries, who has been in “Gang of Eight” classified briefings on the threat that Iran presented, saying, “He is deserving of an ad hominem attack, and so is everybody else.”
By the time the floor debate was over, Mast stood in silence for a long stretch, seemingly seething at Democrats who were angered by his attacks.
But as much as Mast argued Democrats were just holding a show vote, that was exactly what they were trying to prevent.
Democrats have spent weeks lobbying Republicans to join them in support of the war powers resolution. Rep. Gregory Meeks, D-N.Y., the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, told MS NOW he was targeting three Republicans who were on the fence, on top of the two Republicans who voted for the resolution last month. (Rep. Warren Davidson, R-Ohio, voted in support of the measure previously, but he voted “present” on Thursday.)
If the House had opted to back the resolution, it would have amounted to a stunning rebuke of the president and his war. But in fairness to Mast, it still would have been a largely symbolic reprimand.
Dozens more Republicans would have had to break ranks to override an almost certain presidential veto. And a similar resolution already failed this week in the Senate, 47-52, blocking any potential path to the president’s desk.
Recommended
Senate Democrats are expected to force additional votes on war powers in the weeks to come, as they aim to amp up pressure on the GOP.
Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., told MS NOW this has amounted to a messaging effort on the part of Democrats.
“I’m not really faulting the Democrats,” he said. “We’d be doing the same thing if the roles were reversed.”
But he also suggested the tide could turn on Capitol Hill toward the end of the month, when Republicans may feel compelled to wade into the war discussion.
The war powers resolution of 1973 says 60 days after the president first informs Congress of hostilities, the use of armed forces must end, unless Congress has officially voted to authorize military force. In this case, April 29 is the 60-day mark, though the administration could extend that deadline for 30 days.
One House Republican, granted anonymity to discuss sensitive internal deliberations, told MS NOW on Thursday morning that there could be a wave of GOP support on that day.
“Most are holding for the 60 days to elapse pursuant to the war powers act of 1973,” the lawmaker said when asked about GOP support ahead of Thursday’s vote.
In the narrowly divided House, it could just take a handful of Republicans — three or four, even — to nudge the war powers resolution over the finish line.
The same could be said on the Senate side, where some have eyed the 60-day mark as the timeline for when they will have to consider formally authorizing the war through an AUMF.
“I think at that point we have to do it, because it’s going to give us the opportunity to secure support for the President’s supplemental spending,” Tillis said. “I think that’s all wrapped in together.”
Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, is reportedly working on such a resolution, which could put some guardrails on U.S. operations.
Other Republicans, however, have predicted Trump’s operation in Iran, which he has called a “short-term excursion,” will be wrapped up before the 60-day mark, far from a sign of support for the legal requirement.
“I think that the president, our administration, our military, the embargo right now, or the naval blockade, I think all those things will work to get Iran,” Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D., who has voted “no” on all Iran war powers resolutions since the conflict began, told reporters on Wednesday.
He said by that deadline, which is just 13 days away, the operation will be far past done.
“We’re keeping maximum pressure on Iran,” Hoeven said. “And I think that things will be wrapped up well before that.”
Jack Fitzpatrick and Syedah Asghar contributed to this report.
Kevin Frey is a congressional reporter for MS NOW.
Mychael Schnell is a reporter for MS NOW.