When the House votes Thursday to rein in President Donald Trump’s war with Iran, Democrats expect nearly unanimous support among their caucus.
What remains unclear is whether even a small number of Republicans will join them — and whether it will be enough to send a message to the president about Congress’ willingness to check his military authority.
On the GOP side, Democrats aren’t sure what to expect.
A similar war powers resolution failed last month, 212 to 219 — with four Democrats joining with Republicans in opposition. (Only two Republicans voted in support.)
Rep. Gregory Meeks of New York — the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee — told MS NOW they have every Democrat but one in support, “and we’re working on that one.”
“I have two Republicans, and I’m working on a few others who are on the fence,” he said. ”I don’t think they’re going to get off the fence until such time there’s a vote. I don’t know which way they’re going to go.”
If the House approves the resolution, it would amount to a dramatic rebuke of the president and his decision to launch the war, which is now past the six week mark. Thirteen U.S. military personnel are dead. Gas prices have skyrocketed. And the U.S. doesn’t look any closer to a resolution, despite Trump’s promises otherwise.
But even if the war powers resolution is adopted, there’s little indication it will have much practical effect beyond sending a message. The Senate failed to advance its own Iran war powers resolution Wednesday. And, of course, the president would have veto power should a resolution ever land on his desk — a two-thirds, veto proof majority is a long shot, requiring a notable chunk of Republicans to cross the president.
Of the four Democrats who voted against the war powers resolution last month, two have already indicated they will vote in support this time: Reps. Greg Landsman of Ohio and Henry Cuellar of Texas.
Cuellar, in a statement, expressed frustration with a lack of clarity from the administration as to “our objectives, our long-term goals and, most importantly, a clear exit strategy.”
Landsman told MS NOW he will vote for the resolution because of how long the conflict is dragging on, saying Trump has been “cavalier and unserious.”
The other two Democrats who voted ‘no’ last time — Reps. Jared Golden of Maine and Juan Vargas of California — have not said what they intend to do this go around. Neither office responded to a request for comment.
Meeks wouldn’t say which Republicans he is targeting or who the Democratic hold-out is. But when asked if he was confident heading into Thursday that the resolution would advance, he said, “If I had Golden, I would be.”
The two Republicans who voted for the resolution in March were Reps. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, the GOP co-sponsor of the measure, and Warren Davidson of Ohio.
The House vote Thursday will mark the second time this week congressional lawmakers have weighed in on curbing Trump’s authority in Iran. Already, a similar effort failed in the Senate.
On Wednesday, the Senate took its fourth procedural vote on an Iran war powers resolution, with the tally breaking largely the same way it did the three previous attempts: An unsuccessful 47-52 vote. Sens. Rand Paul, R-Ky., and John Fetterman, D-Pa. were the only members to cross the aisle.
Some more moderate Republicans who recently raised concerns about the president’s threats to wipe out a “whole civilization” — such as Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska — still voted against advancing the resolution.
Walking to the Senate floor, Murkowski pointed to negotiations between the U.S. and Iran. “We’re still engaged in an operation, although theoretically we are at a pause,” she said.
Days earlier, she wrote on X that Trump’s rhetoric “cannot be excused away as an attempt to gain leverage in negotiations with Iran.”
“The oppressive, terror-spreading regime of the Islamic Republic must be distinguished from the people and the civilization of Iran. Everyone involved—especially the President and Iran’s leaders—must de-escalate their unprecedented saber-rattling before it is too late,” she added at the time.
Senate Democrats say they intend to continue to force votes on war powers resolutions in the weeks to come. However, while they may try to increase the political pressure on Republicans, they may not find immediate success in prying additional GOP lawmakers to their side.
That story may change in a few weeks, though.
Recommended
The War Powers Resolution of 1973 states that 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 — setting the potential for April 29 to be a key day in the Capitol.
One House Republican, who requested anonymity to discuss the internal dynamics, told MS NOW that after April 29, there could be enough GOP support to constrain the president
“I want to be able to say that no matter who’s the president, no matter which party’s in charge, no matter what region of the world, what country we’re talking about, that we’re applying the same law to the same standard consistently,” this Republican said. “So it is so much easier to just say we are going to follow the War Powers Act of ‘73. If we want to change that law, then let’s change it. But right now, that’s the law, so why don’t we just stick with that?”
Rep. Ro Khanna, the Democratic co-sponsor of the House’s war powers resolution, told MS NOW in an interview Monday night that he also has been hearing that April 29 will be a key GOP defection day.
“When Thomas Massie and I introduced the war powers resolution, we only had two Republicans,” he said. “Now I’m hearing almost 15 Republicans.”
Murkowski, for her part, is reportedly working on a resolution to formally authorize the use of military force (an AUMF, in congressional parlance). Such a measure would allow Congress to set guardrails on the U.S. operation. It’s unclear how much support this could garner.
Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., on Tuesday argued an AUMF “could be an advantage” for the president as part of negotiations with Iran — saying it would remove “the political calculation that maybe the president doesn’t have Congress.”
Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., told MS NOW that while he hopes the conflict will be over by the 60-day mark — or that the president will announce his plans to wind the operation down — “if neither of those things happen,” Hawley said, “then I think, yeah, we have to look at debating a declaration of war.”
Still, however, those stances could change in an instant. In January, two Republican senators — Hawley and Todd Young of Indiana — voted to advance a war powers resolution for Venezuela, a move that was perceived as a massive rebuke of Trump and his strategy of targeting drug boats in the Caribbean.
But the next week, when it came time to weigh in on the actual legislation, the pair voted no, a decision that came after an intense lobbying campaign from the White House, underscoring the tight grip Trump still has on congressional Republicans.
Separately on Wednesday, the Senate rejected a resolution from Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., to block the sale of bombs and bulldozers to Israel — who, with the U.S., launched the attack on Iran.
While the result was not surprising — similar resolutions have failed previously — Sanders did succeed in getting more support from the Democratic caucus than ever before.
The change, Sanders argued, was a reflection of the deteriorating levels of support for Israel among U.S. voters, particularly Democrats.
“This is where the American people are, the polls are very clear,” Sanders said.
Sanders left open the possibility of another vote in the future.
Jack Fitzpatrick contributed to this report.
Kevin Frey is a congressional reporter for MS NOW.
Mychael Schnell is a reporter for MS NOW.