Congress

Congressional Iran votes take on new weight after Trump strikes

Published

8 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

New York Republicans bet anger at Albany can blunt a Trump backlash

Published

8 hours ago

November 1, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

ALBANY, New York — New York Republicans have a closing argument for voters unhappy with the cost of living: Blame the incumbent Democrats who run Albany.

President Donald Trump’s deep unpopularity in his native state — made worse by high gas prices and a Canadian tariff war — has created a nightmare environment for the GOP in this deep blue state. Yet Republican candidates, strategists and former officeholders believe their party can leverage New Yorkers’ vexation with high taxes, housing costs and skyrocketing utility bills to offset the midterm agony their party is poised to suffer on Tuesday.

Gubernatorial nominee Bruce Blakeman’s final TV ad warns voters that Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul’s reelection will result in a tax hike at the behest of her political ally, New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani. On the trail, he blasts the sharp increase in energy costs and pledges to reverse the state’s 12-year-old ban on natural gas drilling along the Pennsylvania border. And he’s pledging to bolster public safety by repealing a package of criminal justice law changes.

Republicans hope those attacks will offset Democrats’ efforts to make the election a referendum on Trump. GOP candidates running in down-ballot House and state legislative contests have used Hochul as a foil — a reflection of her middling poll numbers for much of the year.

Rep. Mike Lawler, running in a district Trump lost by one point two years ago, has gleefully tied Democrats to Hochul.

“If Democrats in New York complain about affordability, we have the highest state taxes in the country, income and property taxes. We have chronically poor educational performance. We have a housing market that’s stultified,” said former Rep. John Faso, a Republican who ran for governor in 2006. “Since the Democrats have been running New York state at the statewide level for many years — it’s hard to blame all of that on Donald Trump.”

Hochul’s campaign insists New York voters will positively affirm her five years in office.

“From the beginning, this race has been about records: Governor Hochul has put money back in New Yorkers’ pockets, invested $4 billion in public safety, and fought back against Trump’s attacks – all Bruce Blakeman has done is raise taxes, stick his neck out for ICE, and defend everything Trump does,” Hochul campaign spokesperson Ryan Radulovacki said in a statement. “New Yorkers don’t want that and they never have.”

The rhetoric reflects a broader bet about voters’ collective mood in an intensely disruptive political era and is a test of whether increasingly nationalized elections can still hinge on local concerns. Skyrocketing gas and grocery costs, along with the perception among younger people that their generation will not be as financially secure as their parents, has fueled insurgent primary candidates’ successful bids against their establishment foes.

New York Republicans are making this anti-incumbent case eight years after Democrats won the state Senate, giving them control of both legislative chambers and the governor’s office. GOP officials contend that Democratic control in Albany has made the Empire State less safe and more expensive. They hope the argument will appeal to swing voters, including the growing number of people who aren’t enrolled in a party, and disaffected Democrats concerned with the party’s leftward lurch — especially after Mamdani’s election.

The stakes for Republicans extend beyond Blakeman’s longshot bid for governor. The GOP is trying to retain control of the closely divided House, and New York is home to several swing districts.

Republicans are fretting about the political fate of Lawler, who occupies one of those swing seats. They are also nervously watching the outcome of a race for a deep red House seat being vacated by Rep. Elise Stefanik — an election that was never expected to be competitive.

Polls have shown their entire statewide ticket, which is led by Blakeman and includes state attorney general and comptroller candidates, down by double digits against the incumbent Democrats. One survey also showed the limits of both candidates’ affordability pitches: 35% of likely voters said neither would make life more affordable for average New Yorkers, compared with 30% who chose Hochul and 27% who chose Blakeman.

Voters across the country are enraged by the cost of living, and Hochul’s allies expect they will take it out on Trump.

“When you have a level of anger at the government or life, sometimes that spills out on people who aren’t to blame,” said Democratic former New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn. “But in New York as it relates to Gov. Hochul, that misplaced anger is easily dispelled when voters are reminded of everything she’s gotten done.”

Some Republicans acknowledge that voters may be in a sour enough mood to reject GOP incumbents like Lawler along with Democrats. That’s added another layer of uncertainty for a party that’s desperate to regain statewide relevance.

“This is the craziest and weirdest election cycle that I’ve ever seen,” said Chris Tague, a state lawmaker and local GOP party chair. “It’s been very tough to gauge what’s going to happen on Tuesday night.”

Republicans are nevertheless trying to find ways of returning to power by casting this midterm fight as a change election.

GOP state attorney general candidate Saritha Komatireddy, running against two-term Democrat Letitia James, has framed her race entirely around public safety as her campaign makes an overt appeal to voters across the political spectrum concerned with crime.

“New Yorkers are tired of the way things are going,” Komatireddy said. “They understand things are going in the wrong direction. They want change.”

The state’s notoriety for high taxes has also given Republicans ammunition.

Blakeman has warned that Hochul’s second term will include the tax hikes being sought by Mamdani, her democratic socialist ally in City Hall. The mayor and his political base — which Hochul needs to run up the score in the five boroughs — are expected to pressure the governor next year to raise income tax rates on rich people and large corporations. Hochul has insisted Mamdani’s campaigning for her is not linked to a promise to back an increase.

In one of his final TV spots, Blakeman’s campaign contends Hochul is to blame for voters’ affordability woes.

“Kathy Hochul made New York unaffordable — taxing paychecks, toll and fare hikes. The nation’s highest taxes,” the ad’s narrator says.

While Hochul has not definitively ruled out a tax increase next year, the Republican nominee has proposed eliminating taxes for most New Yorkers — though he has not spelled out the details.

A party that in the 1990s simultaneously held the governor’s mansion, New York City Hall and a U.S. Senate seat has witnessed its power rapidly erode this century. A New York Republican last won a statewide race in 2002, when George Pataki secured a third term. Trump’s first midterm in 2018 saw the final toehold of GOP power erased when the party lost the state Senate.

Republicans have seen their statewide enrollment steadily dwindle as well, with more voters now registered as independents. Redoubts of Republican power are confined to some upstate counties and on bellwether Long Island, where Blakeman is a top official.

Four years ago, then-Rep. Lee Zeldin made it within 6 points of unseating Hochul — the closest a Republican has come in a gubernatorial election since the GOP’s losing streak began in 2006.

Even that race highlighted the difficulty of a GOP victory in New York. Hochul had taken office only a year earlier and was not as well known as her predecessor, Andrew Cuomo. Democratic President Joe Biden’s popularity was starting to wane. And Republicans benefitted from the deep pockets of cosmetics heir Ronald Lauder, who funded a super PAC to boost their nominee.

Zeldin still lost. And Hochul has used the race as an example of how her party can’t take anything for granted.

“We have major pockets of truly MAGA Republicans,” she told podcaster Ben Max recently. “It’s a much more purple state than people would think.”

Still, Democrats have enjoyed the trappings of incumbency that make it difficult for Republicans to break through as New York’s political establishment remains behind Hochul.

The governor, a powerhouse fundraiser, has handily outspent Blakeman on advertising by more than $10 million, according to data from the ad tracking firm AdImpact. New York’s deep-pocketed private sector — including business leaders who need a powerful governor on their side in Albany — have largely stuck with Hochul. Labor organizations that once endorsed incumbent Republicans like Pataki are firmly within her camp.

“They play a role in this,” said New York Conservative Party Chair Gerard Kassar. “They definitely play a role in keeping incumbents in.”

Congress

Chris Murphy is hospitalized after stroke

Published

9 hours ago

November 1, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Sen. Chris Murphy is being hospitalized following a stroke, an aide to the Connecticut Democrat said Sunday.

“Yesterday afternoon, Senator Murphy started experiencing numbness in his arm while at his son’s hockey game. He was taken to a local hospital, where it was discovered he had experienced a stroke,” Allison Herwitt, Murphy’s chief of staff, said in a statement.

“He was transferred to Johns Hopkins for further monitoring and is responding well to treatment. The doctors are encouraged by his progress, he is awake and alert, and we are optimistic he will make a full recovery,” she added.

Murphy, who is viewed as a potential 2028 White House candidate, has been traveling the country to campaign for candidates, including recent stops in Michigan, Minnesota and Florida. He had been previously scheduled to attend campaign events in New Hampshire on Sunday.

His staff began notifying people Saturday afternoon of the hospitalization and stroke, a person told Blue Light News at the time.

Murphy is the latest lawmaker to face public health issues while in office. Former Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) was hospitalized earlier this year and absent from the Capitol for months. Rep. Tom Kean Jr. (R-N.J.) also had an unexplained monthslong absence that he later said was due to depression.

Murphy is one of several sitting senators who have experienced strokes in recent years.

Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) said in 2022 that he had been hospitalized by a minor stroke. Sen. Ben Ray Lujan (D-N.M.) was also hospitalized that same year for a stroke. Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.), then a Senate candidate, also had a stroke in 2022 that he later described as near fatal. Then-Sen. Mark Kirk, a Republican of Illinois, suffered a stroke in 2012.

Murphy joined the Senate in 2013 and quickly became a leading advocate within the chamber on stricter gun regulation laws after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting occurred just weeks after he won his 2012 Senate race. Murphy held the Senate floor for nearly 15 hours in 2016 to demand stricter gun laws.

Murphy’s also been a prominent figure within the Senate Democratic caucus on foreign policy. More recently, he’s urged his party to be more aggressive in its strategies for checking President Donald Trump. Murphy warned at a Middle East Institute event last week that Trump could try to restart the Iran war after the election. He’s also a junior member of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s leadership team.

Before joining the Senate, Murphy spent six years in the House.

Congress

‘Look what I brought home for you’: GOP embraces earmark revival as Election Day looms

Published

3 days ago

October 30, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

With voters sour on Republican governance, GOP candidates in the most competitive House and Senate races are reaching for a time-tested message that has grown out of fashion in their party: bringing home the federal bacon.

A Blue Light News analysis of the dozen closest congressional races for Republican incumbents revealed that most are highlighting earmark success stories in the final days before voters head to the polls.

The ability to secure federal funding for pet projects back home — something many in the GOP have spent years trying to curtail — has given those candidates a positive talking point as President Donald Trump’s flagging approval ratings and widespread voter dissatisfaction over issues like the Iran war, high gas prices and tariffs weigh on other messages.

“When the president’s job approval is in the 30s, it is helpful for Republican candidates to be able to create some distance from the president. It’s challenging to do that without encouraging the president’s wrath,” Republican pollster Whit Ayres said in an interview. “But focusing on bringing home the bacon might be one very good way to do it without antagonizing the president.”

In Michigan, Rep. Tom Barrett is out with an ad about a $750,000 earmark for youth mentoring; in New York, Rep. Mike Lawler is talking about how he secured $120 million for local projects.

Rep. Rob Bresnahan of Pennsylvania is telling voters he has “brought back more than $110 million to our community,” including millions in earmarks, while Rep. David Valadao has run ads showcasing $500 million in earmarks for water projects in California’s Central Valley.

Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins, a GOP moderate seeking to project independence from Trump in a competitive contest, has repeatedly touted the exact count of the earmarks she has locked in over the last half-decade for her home state of Maine.

The sum: 672 projects totaling $1.5 billion, “from Madawaska to Kittery, from Eastport to Rumford,” as she said in her opening statement earlier this month in her first debate against Democrat Troy Jackson. This past week, Collins has peppered voters with county-specific text messages detailing how much she’s secured for each area.

There are countless other examples of earmark campaigning among vulnerable Republican incumbents, though many conservatives remain reluctant to associate themselves with the practice. It still carries a stigma of corruption after two Republicans were sent to prison on related bribery charges in the mid-2000s, paving the way for the GOP to do away with earmarks in 2011.

That left GOP candidates unable to play up the clearest spoils of incumbency ahead of the “blue wave” of 2018. But Democrats revived them in 2021 with new safeguards, and now Republicans are taking advantage as they navigate another tough midterm cycle.

“That word ‘earmark’ can carry some negative baggage, especially among the old fiscal conservatives,” nonpartisan pollster Mike Noble said in an interview. “But when you describe that same expenditure as funding for a local water system, highway, public safety project — voters evaluate that differently.”

Recognizing the advantages, Republicans opted to keep earmarks around under unified party leadership in 2025, resulting in the enactment of almost $16 billion worth of earmarks this year. For those who still consider earmarks anathema to the GOP’s values of fiscal restraint, it’s causing complications on the trail.

Republican Rep. Bill Huizenga of Michigan is fielding criticism for not requesting any earmarks for his district. While he airs ads calling himself “tight with a buck,” his opponents are telling voters that lawmakers like Huizenga are increasing their net worth “while turning down community project funding.”

Some recent polling shows Huizenga trailing his Democratic challenger, state Sen. Sean McCann, by 1 percentage point.

McCann said in an interview he will “go to bat” for earmarks if he defeats Huizenga: “That’s an expectation that people have when you want to represent them — that you do the things that are important and secure crucial investments for the district.”

Huizenga defended himself in a statement, saying “earmarks have a long history of waste and abuse by politicians looking to enrich themselves in office.”

Huizenga noted that he has “helped secure hundreds of millions in federal investments for Southwest Michigan without requesting a single earmark,” including a $400 million grant last year for a nuclear power plant and $51 million for a housing redevelopment project.

He isn’t the only Republican incumbent in a tight race who has foregone earmarks. Alaska Sen. Dan Sullivan, who is facing a competitive challenge from former Democratic Rep. Mary Peltola, refused to request cash for district-specific projects as part of the annual government funding process. Instead, he points to his support for efforts made possible through the 2021 infrastructure law signed by then-President Joe Biden, as well as other legislation and grants the Trump administration doles out for local efforts.

Trump officials have traveled to Alaska in recent weeks to stand alongside Sullivan in announcing the delivery of hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding for the state, including $38 million in energy grants and $250 million for rail infrastructure.

Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.), who appears to be in a dead heat with his Democratic challenger Adam Hamilton, also didn’t ask for any federal funding this year. But he is getting flak for seeking a $4.2 million earmark in 2024 to finance improvements to increase water to a wildlife refuge that borders his ranch.

Spokespeople for the Sullivan and Marshall campaigns did not respond to requests for comment.

Whether voters perceive earmark requests as positive or negative likely depends heavily on how a candidate frames the talking point, Noble said, acknowledging that incumbents rarely use the word in campaign ads or town hall speeches and instead speak broadly about how they “deliver” for their district.

“Voters, at the end of the day — it’s about direct benefit. What are they getting out of this deal? That’s one of the powers of incumbency. They have that ability to say, ‘Hey, look what I brought home for you,’” he said. “But again, what else are they going to talk about?”