Congress

Congressional Iran votes take on new weight after Trump strikes

Published

7 months ago

February 28, 2026

Congress is set to vote next week on ending the U.S. military campaign in Iran in what will be an effective referendum on President Donald Trump’s decision to launch a new war in the Middle East.

Bipartisan efforts to have the House and Senate weigh in to forestall a possible Iran attack have been brewing for months and accelerated in recent weeks as the Pentagon undertook a massive buildup in the region. With American and Israeli munitions now striking Iranian targets, backers of the push to check Trump are calling for an immediate vote.

“The American people are tired of regime change wars that cost us billions of dollars and risk our lives,” Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), who is co-leading the House effort, said in a video message Saturday morning. “Every member of Congress must go on the record today on how they will vote.”

The lawmakers leading the effort to end the hostilities are casting the votes as an opportunity to put political pressure on Trump and his Republican allies in Congress, not as a definitive way to force the bombing to end. A succession of presidents have questioned the constitutionality of the 1973 war powers law the lawmakers are seeking to invoke, and similar recent efforts to restrain Trump from military strikes have failed.

Though many Democrats called Saturday for both chambers to return to session immediately, GOP leaders are not altering their plans, according to six people granted anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

The Senate is not scheduled to return to session until Monday night, with a vote on an Iran resolution expected as soon as Tuesday, according to another person granted anonymity to disclose private scheduling. The House isn’t scheduled to hold votes until Wednesday, and two people with knowledge of the plans said administration officials are likely to brief lawmakers before the Iran measure comes up Wednesday or Thursday.

In the early hours after the strikes Saturday, only a few Republican lawmakers indicated they might vote to end them. Several House Democrats said they would oppose the war powers push, effectively assuring a vote will fail.

But Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), who is leading the House effort with Khanna, said in an interview it was instrumental to protect Congress’s constitutional role in declaring war and to hold the Trump administration accountable for its decision to put troops in harm’s way.

“Congressional debate and authorization is important to define the scope and objectives of the war for our military,” he said. “We owe this to our soldiers.”

Massie said the Saturday strikes have undermined some arguments he had heard against moving forward with a congressional vote.

“Some said limited attacks would not constitute war, but the President himself used the term ‘war’ last night,” he said, referring to a Trump video message released early Saturday morning. “And some said it would be premature to direct the President to withdraw from hostilities that hadn’t occurred yet, but we’ve obviously passed that point now.”

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), who is leading the war powers push in the Senate with Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), called the strikes “a colossal mistake” and urged Republicans to “immediately return to session” for a vote on his measure.

“Every single Senator needs to go on the record about this dangerous, unnecessary, and idiotic action,” he said in a statement.

“As with all war, my first and purest instinct is [to] wish Americans soldiers safety and success in their mission,” Paul said in a X post. “But my oath of office is to the Constitution, so with studied care, I must oppose another Presidential war.”

Paul was the only Republican to support restraining Trump in June, after he launched strikes on Iranian nuclear sites. Senators voted 53-42 to reject that measure, and there is no immediate indication the vote count will change.

Most Republicans weighing in Saturday sidestepped the possibility of a congressional vote entirely. One who did not, Sen. Thom Tills of North Carolina, said in a statement only that lawmakers would “determine whether a broader scope and further military action requires an authorization by Congress“ following a full briefing from the Trump administration.

Rep. Warren Davidson (R-Ohio) reposted an X message Saturday from earlier in the week where he said “no case has been made” for military strikes and that he would support restraining Trump in “the absence of new information.”

In a more recent sign that congressional Republicans are hesitant to check Trump’s use of military force, the Senate ultimately voted down an effort to block further military operations in Venezuela after the January operation to remove authoritarian president Nicolas Maduro. Five GOP senators initially voted against the administration, allowing the measure to advance, but two later switched positions.

Rep. Derrick Van Orden (R-Wis.) said in an interview that it’s “just not true” that Trump is in violation of the 1973 war powers law, which includes a congressional notice requirement and a 60-day deadline for seeking lawmaker approval. He accused those pushing the vote — primarily Democrats, but also calling out Massie —- as “trying to undermine the United States of America because they hate President Trump.”

“We have men and women right now in harm’s way, and we have Democrats right now trying to undermine the commander-in-chief, which means they’re trying to undermine the military, and these people need to knock it off now,” he said.

Top Democratic leaders, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and top members of the congressional Intelligence committees, all criticized Trump Saturday for acting without formal congressional approval.

“The Trump administration must explain itself to the American people and Congress immediately, provide an ironclad justification for this act of war, clearly define the national security objective and articulate a plan to avoid another costly, prolonged military quagmire in the Middle East,” Jeffries said, adding that Democrats are “committed to compelling a vote” on the Massie-Khanna measure.

But some Democrats are hesitant to place fetters on Trump as he moves to obliterate an Iranian regime they have long criticized.

Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, who was the only Democrat to oppose the June war powers effort, said in a Fox News interview Saturday morning that “I fully support these kind of things, and I’m proud to stand with our military and Israel through this.”

Democratic leaders in the House believe some moderate members of their caucus will oppose the Iran war powers resolution, according to three other people granted anonymity to describe internal conversations. House Democrats are set to discuss the measure and Trump’s military action on a caucus call Sunday night.

Rep. Greg Landsman of Ohio, a Democrat who has been supportive of Israel, plans to oppose the House war powers measure, a spokesperson confirmed Saturday.

“Thank you to our brave service members who are leading this effort, and I pray their work will finally free the people of Iran and those in the region from more violence or war,” Landsman posted after the strikes began.

Joe Gould, Connor O’Brien and Leo Shane III contributed to this report.

Congress

Capitol agenda: China fears drive AI divide

Published

30 minutes ago

September 17, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Americans — and Congress — are divided on whether it’s acceptable to fall behind other countries in the race to develop advanced artificial intelligence.

And that fear of international competition is emerging as a key point of tension slowing down any path to AI safety legislation.

Even as almost two thirds of respondents in a new Blue Light News poll said there’s a real possibility that AI could destroy humanity, they’re split on whether it’s acceptable to slow down and potentially fall behind other countries like China in an AI arms race.

A plurality, 43 percent, say it is okay for the U.S. to fall behind if that means developing AI more responsibly and securely, while 37 percent take the opposite view. Voters who backed Donald Trump in 2024 favor the competition-first position by 50 percent compared to just 34 percent of Kamala Harris voters.

Republican Energy and Commerce Chair Brett Guthrie argued the U.S. cannot risk Chinese AI dominance, and that AI legislation is too complex to rush — even if that means pushing off until next year consideration of a measure by his panel.

“We absolutely can’t surrender,” he said Wednesday at Blue Light News’s Decoded Summit.

Meanwhile, the head of the Congressional Progressive Caucus said competition isn’t a reason to avoid guardrails.

“The AI race is not an arms race that you win,” Rep. Greg Casar said at the Decoded Summit.

Other lawmakers from both sides of the aisle are trying to strike a balance. Rep. John Moolenaar, chair of the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, acknowledged lawmakers “do have a responsibility for public safety” while saying it was also important to “beat China when it comes to the AI race.”

Still, the emerging divisions spotlight a long road ahead for any consensus from Congress.

An attempt to quickly pass a bill requiring companies to build a “kill switch” into their AI models from Republican Sen. John Kennedy was blocked Wednesday by Sen. Rand Paul on the chamber’s floor.

And while Guthrie’s Senate counterpart, Commerce Chair Ted Cruz said Wednesday his hope was still to mark up this month a bipartisan AI safety bill from Majority Leader John Thune and Sen. Amy Klobuchar, lawmakers haven’t reached agreement to finalize the measure. Thune himself said Wednesday he was unsure it would happen before the midterms.

Cracks are also starting to show among the leading AI companies on what role they want Congress to play.

One example: Anthropic’s policy chief Sarah Heck declined at Blue Light News’s summit to endorse a proposal for congressionally mandated independent AI monitoring — a day after competitor OpenAI endorsed it. The proposal is a key provision in Reps. Jay Obernolte and Lori Trahan’s bipartisan AI safety measure.

The House’s early dismissal Wednesday only added to time pressure on lawmakers, who will return to a lame duck session with an already full calendar.

What else we’re watching:

— LEE BULLISH ON PERMITTING: Energy and Natural Resources Chair Mike Lee told fellow Republicans during a closed-door lunch Wednesday he is “guardedly optimistic” that negotiators will reach a long-sought deal on a bill to ease permitting approval for energy projects. “We were told today that the Democrats are going to agree to a permitting bill, and it’s going to be drafted and ready for us to vote on,” Kennedy said in an interview. Still, the top negotiators have yet to clinch an agreement, meaning the timeline could slip until after the midterms.

— SPY LAW TIMING UNCLEAR: The Office of the Director of National Intelligence recently warnedCongress that if it doesn’t vote on a controversial surveillance law by Nov. 20, the program could go dark, but it’s unclear congressional leadership can meet that deadline. Thune told reporters this week that there is an “interest” in trying to get Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act reauthorized, but didn’t commit to getting a vote before the midterms. With the House gone, reauthorization will wait until at least mid-November, regardless.

Riley Rogerson, Mia McCarthy, Anna Wiederkehr, Jordain Carney, John Sakellariadis and Josh Siegel contributed to this report.

Congress

Poll: China fears drive polarization on AI regulations

Published

4 hours ago

September 17, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Americans are divided on whether it’s acceptable to fall behind other countries in the race to develop advanced artificial intelligence. So is Congress.

A new POLITICO Poll finds that Americans broadly recognize serious risks from frontier AI models, but many — particularly President Donald Trump’s voters — also prioritize maintaining a lead over other countries, including China.

Even as 63% of the poll’s respondents said there’s a real possibility that AI could destroy humanity, they’re split on whether it’s acceptable to slow down and potentially fall behind in order to mitigate that risk.

A plurality, 43%, say it is acceptable for the U.S. to fall behind other countries if that means developing AI more responsibly and securely, while 37% take the opposite view, saying the U.S. should not stand down, even if that requires taking risks. Voters who backed Trump in 2024 favor the competition-first position by 50% to 38%.

That split is already playing out on Capitol Hill as AI safety zooms to the center of congressional conversations. With legislation only slowly taking shape, fear of international competition stands to be a major point of tension during any bipartisan negotiations — with most lawmakers’ views divided closely along party lines.

Many Republican lawmakers said in interviews this week that pausing AI development could give China an opening to overtake U.S. capabilities. Democrats are also looking over their shoulders at Chinese advances, but they are cautioning that competition is not a reason for Congress to avoid instituting AI guardrails.

“The AI race is not an arms race that you win,” Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) said during Wednesday’s Blue Light News Decoded Summit. “It’s an arms race that we need to end, and we need to protect the American people.”

Casar, the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, has teamed up with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in calling for a ban on “superintelligence” to stave off the existential threats to humanity — a concern that bubbled to the fore last week when a former Anthropic researcher warned AI could “kill us all.”

Senior Republicans are denigrating proposals like Casar’s, arguing that the U.S. cannot risk Chinese AI dominance. Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.), chair of the powerful House committee overseeing the tech industry, said as much at the summit.

“We absolutely can’t surrender,” he said. “And I think that’s what it would be if we stopped AI development.”

Guthrie further argued AI legislation is too complex to rush and that the Energy and Commerce Committee he leads might not take up AI legislation before next year. That sentiment is in line with Speaker Mike Johnson, who said this week that the U.S. must “maintain our edge over China.” Meanwhile, Trump has called the AI panic a “HOAX” and said that federal regulations would allow China to leapfrog the U.S.

Some Republicans have been almost flippant about the dilemma policymakers face in reconciling a potentially dangerous technology with their fear of Chinese competition.

“If there are going to be killer robots, I’d rather they be American killer robots,” Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas said in a recent POLITICO interview. Like Guthrie, Cruz chairs a committee overseeing tech matters.

Among the bipartisan group of lawmakers who have locked arms in warning about the Chinese threat on other fronts, the familiar partisan divide is still emerging on AI regulation.

“We can lead in innovation and lead in safety,” said Rep. Greg Stanton (D-Ariz.), who sits on the bipartisan Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party. “So if Trump or anyone else comes at it that we can only do one but not the other, he’s not looking at the history of the United States of America.”

Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska, a moderate Republican China hawk, said he is “very reluctant to hinder AI” via regulation.

“They’re going to have to make the good case why we need it,” he said. “We don’t want to hinder our AI research. We can’t afford to fall behind China.”

Some, however, are being careful to strike a balanced tone as the AI safety conversation kicks into high gear.

Rep. John Moolenaar (R-Mich.), chair of the House China panel, acknowledged lawmakers “do have a responsibility for public safety” while saying it was also important to “beat China when it comes to the AI race.”

“There’s economic benefits to that,” he said. “There’s national security issues, but we want to have common sense and a deliberative process.”

Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.), an Intelligence Committee member and a co-chair of House Democrats’ AI commission, said China is “not waiting for anyone else.”

“So you can’t just leave the race, but you need to make sure you do it in the right way,” he added.

Opinions are sharper when it comes to Trump’s upcoming meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping next week and whether he should even broach some type of cooperation on AI safety.

“I don’t trust him,” Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.), a senior member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said when asked if Trump should engage with Xi on AI. “I trust Trump.”

But many Democrats say it’s a mistake to engage in an AI arms race, with some explicitly reaching for analogies with the nuclear arms race that ended in Cold War treaties with a former global rival — the Soviet Union — limiting bomb tests and missile deployments.

Rep. Ted Lieu of California, another co-chair of the Democratic AI commission, said Trump could start small by asking Xi to “commit that they’re never going to let AI launch a nuclear weapon by itself.”

“There are things that we can do to get other countries to follow the lead the U.S. has taken in AI,” he said.

Congress

Democrats keep pressure on Hakeem Jeffries to punish rogue members

Published

12 hours ago

September 17, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

House Democrats aren’t letting rogue members off the hook for bucking their party. They hope Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries won’t either.

“Obviously, there’s got to be” punishment for the two Democrats who twice this month bucked their party to advance a slate of Republican priorities, Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.) said in an interview.

“Otherwise, then,” he said, “it’s open season.”

Democrats are watching closely how — and if — Jeffries doles out consequences for Reps. Jared Golden of Maine and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington who have twice provided the decisive votes for GOP procedural measures this month. Jeffries and his leadership team condemned the two members when they first defected two weeks ago, slamming a “breach of trust” warranting a “serious response” but have yet to inflict any public consequences.

On Tuesday, they defied leadership a second time, infuriating House Democrats and resurrecting questions about how leadership plans to keep its caucus in line — especially if they have a slim majority next term.

“We have to all be united, and I think it’s pretty simple,” said one House Democrat who was granted anonymity to speak candidly. “If there’s not [a punishment], I find it hard to see a path forward in the majority, which we’re all pushing for.”

Asked if leadership should punish the two aisle-crossers, Rep. Troy Carter pointed to his time as minority leader of the Louisiana state Senate: “When I had members that did not work within the confines of the philosophical views of our party, I took them off our caucus.”

“I don’t want to second-guess anybody’s timing, but I will tell you that these things cannot allow to fester,” he added. “We have to have a strict message: Either you’re with the team on those fundamental issues of governance or you aren’t.”

Multiple members, including Carter, said that removing Gluesenkamp Perez from the Appropriations Committee should be considered. (While members are just as angry at Golden, they acknowledge he’s beyond punishment given he is retiring at the end of this term.)

“I suspect that there are a number of appropriate consequences that [leaders] could implement,” Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-Calif.) said in an interview. “And, ultimately, it’s their decision. I certainly don’t want that to be a caucus decision. That should be a leadership decision.”

One leader, Whip Katherine Clark of Massachusetts, suggested she is open to removing Gluesenkamp Perez from Appropriations, telling reporters Wednesday morning that “team players get to sit on exclusive committees.”

After the first instance where the two Democrats defected on Sept. 1, Jeffries kicked the matter to a caucus rules panel, saying afterward he wanted to pursue action against the two members “sooner rather than later.” The panel continues to deliberate on what should happen if members vote with Republicans on procedural measures.

Jeffries said that week that he’d had a “productive” and “forward-looking” conversation with Gluesenkamp Perez, but he has said much less after Tuesday’s floor drama.

“I’ll have more to say about the issue when I have more to say about the issue,” he told Blue Light News shortly after the vote.