Two and half months into President Donald Trump’s war with Iran, a few Republicans are starting to show the faintest signs of impatience. But just a few.
It is not enough to force an end to the Iran war, and Trump’s most loyal allies on Capitol Hill are only growing more loyal. But on Thursday, three Republicans voted to constrain Trump through a war powers resolution: Reps. Tom Barrett, R-Mich., Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pa., and Thomas Massie, R-Ky.
The resolution still fell short in a 212-212 tie vote, with those three Republicans and 209 Democrats voting yes, and 211 Republicans and one Democrat voting no.
It is the third time the chamber has failed to adopt a war powers resolution on Iran, with this latest effort coming just a day after the Senate rejected its seventh war powers measure in a 49-50 vote.
Still, the votes show an almost imperceptible movement against Trump, who continues to demand nearly unanimous support from Republican lawmakers in both chambers. In March, shortly after the conflict started, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., was the only Senate Republican to vote in favor of a war powers resolution. Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, have since joined him, though Pennsylvania Democrat John Fetterman continues to oppose the measures.
In the House, a March 5 resolution failed 212-219, with just two Republicans joining most Democrats to try to constrain Trump. Now, 75 days after the conflict started — and 15 days after the 60-day War Powers Resolution deadline came and went without Trump seeking congressional authorization — only one more House Republican has joined the effort to rein in the president.
While opponents of the war are flirting with a majority in both chambers, they are nowhere near a veto-proof two-thirds supermajority.
Moderates in both parties have become mired in fights over technicalities and convoluted arguments. Rep. Jared Golden, D-Maine, broke with his party Thursday, opposing the war powers resolution. He said in a statement that the specific language of the measure was moot because it would have shortened the deadline for congressional approval from 60 days to 30 days — both of which have, again, elapsed. Golden said he planned to support “a clean, relevant resolution” in the future.
Murkowski, meanwhile, has started work on an authorization for use of military force, which would constrain Trump’s ability to continue hostilities but give him more latitude than a successful war powers resolution. But the administration’s insistence that the conflict has “terminated,” or at least paused — despite a U.S. naval blockade on Iranian ports — has complicated those efforts.
“I have been working with several colleagues on an authorization for the use of military force, but with the reported claim of ended hostilities, this course of action is not an effective means to manage this conflict,” Murkowski said in a statement. “Should hostilities reignite and military action resume, I will reconsider the introduction of an AUMF.”
Supporters of the war are not so concerned with minor details. May 31 — the harder 90-day deadline for hostilities to end after the softer 60-day deadline absent congressional approval — is unconstitutional and effectively meaningless, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told MS NOW.
“Why should it matter?” Graham said, when asked about the 90-day deadline. He said he thinks the War Powers Resolution is “patently unconstitutional.”
“If you don’t like what the commander in chief’s doing as a member of Congress, cut off funding to the military operation,” Graham told MS NOW. “Anything else makes 535 commander-in-chiefs.”
Of course, the White House has yet to provide a firm price tag for the conflict, let alone issue a supplemental funding request to Congress, meaning a funding fight has not yet provided the legislative pinch point that some Democrats have, in the face of repeated failed war powers votes, hoped for to put a check on the war.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has argued the ceasefire between the U.S. and Iran effectively pauses the clock on the War Powers Resolution’s time limits on hostilities. Few Republicans have pushed back on that argument.
“I think at this point, we’re in a ceasefire, and also, the administration has been working very hard to comply with the War Powers Act,” Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D., told MS NOW. “So I think that’s where we’re at.”
Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., urged lawmakers Wednesday to stand behind Trump, opposing a war powers resolution, while the president visits China.
“Right now, the president’s overseas,” Thune told reporters. “He’s negotiating with the Chinese on a whole range of issues, some of which bear on national security. I think it would be best if everybody hung together and supported the president.”
Other supporters have employed grandiose language, accusing opponents of the war of being “shortsighted” about the future of America’s own national security.
“You just don’t see it yet,” Rep. Troy Nehls, R-Texas, told MS NOW on Wednesday. “Iran has a dictatorship over there. They’re brutal. Could you imagine if we started hanging athletes out in the town square? Just start hanging people because you disagree with something? That’s how brutal they are.”
Rep. Derrick Van Orden, R-Wis., similarly touted Trump’s long-term vision, though he said he would be opposed to the U.S. having a boots-on-the-ground presence in Iran.
“President Trump thinks generationally, and 47 years ago, the Iranians declared war on the United States of America, and they’re directly responsible for killing and maiming many of my friends,” Van Orden, a retired Navy SEAL, told reporters Wednesday. “And we have to finish this now, so that our children and grandchildren are not fighting the same people.”
Senate Democrats have vowed to continue forcing votes on war powers resolutions until the conflict is over. Until Republicans take a more scrutinizing view of the Trump administration’s actions, they do not have many more options, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., told reporters Thursday.
“I will say, I have had some conversations with some of my colleagues who are beginning to express some concerns about the administration, but they’re not doing it publicly,” Shaheen said.
When asked if she had heard that from a lot of Republicans, Shaheen indicated that the concerns are not widespread.
“A couple,” she said.
The post Republicans refuse to rein in Trump on Iran for the 10th time appeared first on MS NOW.
