Congress

Congressional Iran votes take on new weight after Trump strikes

Published

4 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: Jeffries gets preview of his future headaches

Published

5 hours ago

June 23, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Trouble for Hakeem Jeffries is brewing close to home.

New Yorkers will decide Tuesday whether to support a slate of insurgent progressive candidates who are bullish about bucking the party establishment: Brad Lander, Darializa Avila Chevalier and Claire Valdez.

The Zohran Mamdani-backed trio are taking on incumbent, leadership allies: Reps. Dan Goldman, Congressional Hispanic Caucus Chair Adriano Espaillat as well as outgoing Rep. Nydia Velázquez, who endorsed a different successor.

The progressive challengers are positioning themselves as firebrands willing to play hardball to force the Democratic Caucus leftward. Take Chevalier, a Democratic Socialists of America member who told Vox last week that “all deportations are wrong” including for people who have been convicted of breaking U.S. law. Neither she nor Valdez have said if they would back Jeffries as speaker should Democrats take the majority.

In addition to presenting a long-term headache for a potential Jeffries speakership, progressive challenger wins would deliver an immediate blow to Jeffries’ credibility as a power broker in his own backyard. He endorsed Goldman and Espaillat.

As Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer weighs a 2028 reelection bid, he too will be paying close attention to the depth of lefty, anti-incumbent fervor among voters in his state.

Democratic leadership’s old guard will also be on watch Tuesday evening as Maryland decides who will replace former Majority Leader Steny Hoyer: his preferred successor Adrian Boafo or his old frenemy Nancy Pelosi’s pick of former Capitol Police officer Harry Dunn.

Democrats have been divided on the race from the jump, with Gov. Wes Moore and Sen. Angela Alsobrooks also backing Boafo. Fellow Marylander — and maybe 2028 presidential candidate — Sen. Chris Van Hollen got in on the action last month by knocking Boafo for taking AIPAC and crypto money.

And a PSA: The many, many self-funded campaign ads from warring Democratic millionaires Rep. April McClain Delaney and her predecessor David Trone – who is trying to win his seat back after losing a Senate bid in 2024 – will come to an end Tuesday night.

Republicans won’t escape the messy primary day.

In Utah, House GOP leadership member Rep. Blake Moore will attempt to beat challenger Karianne Lisonbee who is taking him to task for once opposing partisan gerrymandering. An AI proxy war is also playing out in Rep. Celeste Maloy’s district where former state Rep. Phil Lyman is attacking the congresswoman — who has received nearly $1 million from an Anthropic-funded super PAC — over data center construction.

Yet, at least one House Republican is pulling for a Democrat Tuesday evening.

Vulnerable GOP Rep. Mike Lawler has meddled in the Democratic primary to run against him. Jason Beeferman reports that Lawler has tried to tear down Army vet Cait Conley via a covert text blast, among other tactics, seeming to prefer that he get to run against her opponent Beth Davidson.

What else we’re watching:

— TRUMP TO GET SAVE AMERICA ACT REALITY CHECK IN SENATE: President Donald Trump was invited to Republican senators’ lunch Wednesday to push for his No. 1 priority, the GOP election bill known as the SAVE America Act. But several outgoing Republicans who have clashed with Trump said Monday they will be there to deliver a reality check: The bill isn’t passing, and it’s time to move on.

— SCHUMER FORCES IRAN WAR POWERS VOTE ON WARY GOP: Schumer Tuesday plans to force the Senate to vote on a House-passed Iran war powers resolution – putting on record Republicans who are publicly skeptical of Trump’s agreement last week to end the conflict. The measure won House approval earlier this month after four House Republicans joined Democrats to effectively halt military operations unless Congress authorizes it.

Jordain Carney contributed to this report.

Congress

Senate Republicans exclude Democrats’ food aid demand from farm bill

Published

16 hours ago

June 23, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Senate Republicans’ farm bill proposal rejects Democrats’ demands to delay a planned shift of some food aid costs to states, according to three people familiar with the plans — jeopardizing hopes of winning bipartisan support for the package.

Democrats say they will oppose a farm bill that doesn’t push back a requirement that will soon force some states to pay for some Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits, a provision included in the domestic policy megalaw Republicans passed last year.

Senate Agriculture Chair John Boozman (R-Ark.) gave Senate staff and industry representatives a private preview of his farm bill text Monday afternoon ahead of a planned public release of the discussion draft at 2 p.m. Tuesday, according to the people, all of whom were granted anonymity to discuss the not-yet-public plans.

Boozman will need some Democratic support to guarantee the bill can clear the 60-vote threshold on the Senate floor.

A GOP spokesperson for the Agriculture Committee said Boozman had “developed a discussion draft that can earn the bipartisan support needed for Senate passage.” The spokesperson added that Boozman will continue talks with senators and industry representatives while “finalizing text and moving toward a markup.”

The draft legislation also excludes some Republican and agriculture industry priorities, such as provisions that would allow year-round sales of E15 fuel and block states from creating certain animal welfare and pesticide labeling laws, according to the three people.

Senators from both parties are already eyeing how they might amend the bill to include their priorities. That could muddy the legislation’s path forward by generating a number of conflicts during the committee’s markup ahead of a potential floor vote on the package.

Some GOP senators whose state budgets would be hard hit by the change have privately indicated that they would support delaying the provision, which is set to begin October 2027.

Those senators and anti-hunger advocates argue the SNAP cost-share plan will kick people off the program and lead to benefit cuts. Democrats also note that many states will already receive delays or exemptions to the cost-share requirement due to high or low payment error rates.

Boozman said in an interview last month that he was “open to listening” to Democrats’ argument, but contended it could complicate his efforts to craft a budget-neutral bill.

The Senate’s version largely mirrors the House’s, which passed with 12 Democratic votes in April. Boozman is aiming to mark up his bill between the chamber’s Fourth of July and August recesses.

Congress

Senate Republicans say it’s time to give Trump a reality check

Published

16 hours ago

June 23, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Donald Trump is about to come face to face with one of his frequent punching bags: Senate Republicans.

They might just be in a mood to punch back.

The president was invited to GOP senators’ Wednesday lunch to push for his No. 1 priority, the GOP election bill known as the SAVE America Act. But several outgoing Republicans who have clashed with Trump said Monday they will be there to deliver a reality check: The bill isn’t passing, and it’s time to move on.

“I’m going to be there front and center,” Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) told reporters. “It will be important if it actually is a constructive exchange of different opinions, and hopefully we can all get on the same page. Right now, we’re not in a great place.”

Cornyn, who recently lost his bid for a fifth term to a Trump-endorsed challenger, reiterated the votes just aren’t there to pass the elections bill: “I’ve been around here long enough and been through enough battles and counted enough votes to know that it doesn’t just magically occur, no matter how much you wish it would happen.”

Sens. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) and Bill Cassidy (R-La.) — who are also departing the Senate in part due to Trump — said Monday they, too, will be at the closed-door lunch and urged Trump to turn the page on the SAVE America Act.

“I’m a co-sponsor, but it doesn’t have the votes, and so it’s time to talk about something else,” said Cassidy, who also lost to a Trump-backed primary opponent.

Trump was invited to the Wednesday lunch by Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), who oversees the weekly gathering as GOP steering committee chair, at a tenuous moment. Senate Republicans have grown frustrated with Trump’s fixation on the elections bill, are openly questioning parts of his Iran deal and worry that his habit of blindsiding them with sudden policy U-turns is making it harder to preserve their majority in November.

Scott’s invitation comes as the elections bill has emerged as a perennial headache for Senate Majority Leader John Thune, whom Scott informed of the invite after it was extended. Thune and other members of the GOP conference insist it doesn’t have the votes to pass and have begged Trump to focus on more attainable priorities.

Same goes, they say, for other Trump demands — killing the 60-vote filibuster threshold for legislation, for instance, and ending the “blue slip” practice of giving home-state senators a say on some presidential nominees.

“None of those are going to happen here, and we need to be honest with the president,” Tillis said. “So why don’t we spend more time being productive about how we communicate, when we communicate, and get some of these very pressing issues done?”

But Trump has shown he will not relent, especially on the SAVE America Act — a bill that would impose new proof-of-citizenship and identification requirements for U.S. voters in its base form, with the president demanding still other controversial provisions added on top of that.

In a Truth Social post late last week, Trump name-checked Thune and urged the Senate to nix the filibuster and approve the bill: “Anybody who doesn’t want to Terminate the Filibuster is a FOOL, a very stupid one, at that!”

Several GOP senators, including Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, have objected to the precedent the bill would set by nationalizing election procedures. Test votes on the bill have not garnered more than 48 supporters, though a narrower bill focused on voter ID won 50 votes. That’s still far short of the 60 votes needed to defeat a certain Democratic filibuster.

Asked late last week about Trump’s comments, Thune said a majority of Senate Republicans have long-held views against nixing the filibuster.

“It’s not a question of what I want to do or don’t want to do,” he said. “It does always come back to the math. And … there just aren’t the votes to do it.”

Thune said Monday that he “wouldn’t be surprised” if the election bill comes up but predicted it would be a “back and forth” between Trump and GOP senators over multiple subjects, including the brewing Iran deal and the stalemate over a key surveillance law and future of the director of national intelligence post.

He added that “hopefully” the discussion would include “celebrating some of our successes, talking about the path forward.”

The GOP election bill has become a consistent friction point within the party and within the Senate GOP conference. Senate Republicans largely support the bill but believe the party needs to turn its focus to Democrats, rather than fighting each other, with just months to go until the midterms.

Republican senators have kvetched for months about how they believe Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) is setting unrealistic expectations for the bill’s passage. Lee posted on X over the weekend that he spoke with Trump and “he’s as convinced as I am that we can get this done if the Senate’s willing to do the hard work.”

Cornyn called out Lee Monday, saying that he “is contributing to this fantasy that somehow it’s going to happen.”

Lee responded that the election bill isn’t a fantasy but “a plan to avoid a nightmare — one that’s coming soon unless we act.”

Senate Republicans agreed to take up the voting bill earlier this year, in part after leaders privately reassured wary GOP senators that the debate wouldn’t result in an attempt to skirt the 60-vote filibuster. But the weekslong debate failed to break the stalemate on the bill, and Senate Republicans ultimately placed it on the back burner as other legislative deadlines piled up.

Conservatives, however, hadn’t forgotten about the bill, and now they want the Senate to continue to vote on it.

Scott — who came in third in the leadership contest Thune won after the 2024 election— sent a letter to his fellow Senate Republicans Monday, a copy of which was obtained by Blue Light News, saying that he wanted to have “robust conversations” this week about what the party should be focused on before the midterms. That, he said, should include voting on the SAVE America Act or narrower voter ID legislation.

“We need to make a clear distinction as to who the good guys are and who the bad guys are,” Scott wrote in the letter. “We need to show voters that we are listening to them and will fight for their priorities whether any Democrats vote with us or not.”