SerpApi.Org
Members in both the Republican and Democratic parties are anxious to see an end to the conflict in Iran. But finding a path to end the warfare is proving to be a difficult task.
Since the war began in late February, the debate over who has jurisdiction over authorizing military action has plagued the halls of Congress. While the legislative body holds the sole power to declare war under the Constitution, that authority has been hotly contested for decades on how it coincides with the president’s role as commander in chief.
That gray area has become more evident during the conflict in Iran — and it’s pushed lawmakers into a corner as they call for an end to hostilities but are unsure how to do so.
“It’s not something that Congress has really ever been able to figure out,” Utah Sen. John Curtis told the Deseret News. “It’s a constant tug and pull between Congress declaring war and the president being the commander in chief. But in my opinion, we should be in tandem with the administration and be doing more than we’re doing.”
President Donald Trump first notified Congress of military action beginning in Iran on March 2. Under the War Powers Act, that started a 60-day clock for Trump to conclude the military operation, with the caveat that the president could request an additional 30 days for withdrawal purposes.
As the conflict reached the end of that 60-90-day window, Trump had announced a ceasefire deal with Iran. Although the terms were tenuous, officials from the U.S. and Iran later signed a 60-day ceasefire deal in mid-June.
That agreement has since fallen apart, and the two countries have launched a series of retaliatory strikes in the days following. Trump, for his part, has indicated he won’t back down yet because “we’re not finished at all.
Which again raises the question: At what point does Congress step in, if at all?
No one seems to know. And Democrats argue there isn’t a set objective to the conflict.
“There was no strategy to go into Iran, and I think that one of the most critical mistakes is that this administration didn’t have a plan,” House Democratic Chairman Pete Aguilar, D-Calif., told reporters on Tuesday. “On day one, they listed goals. On day two, they listed more goals. Each time they come to Congress, they give a different set of revisionist history. It’s incredibly unfortunate where we are, and it’s going to take a high level of diplomacy to get us out.”
When pressed on what the solution should be, Aguilar seemed to acknowledge there wasn’t much he and his Democratic colleagues in Congress could do.
“What we should be doing is charting a strategy and plan on what the next 60 days looks like, what the next couple months looks like working with allies and partners — but each time the administration starts down that path, they step on themselves and they get in the way,” he said. “We aren’t charged with those decisions. The executive is charged with those decisions. Our job is to hold them accountable and ask questions. And each and every time we do that, we get different answers.”
Lawmakers look for ways to reassert authority
Still, Democrats have sought to assert their influence when it comes to authorizing military force. And they’ve been able to pick off some Republicans who have grown wary of the prolonged conflict with no end in sight.
The Senate approved a resolution last month directing Trump to cease military operations in Iran until he receives congressional approval. Four Republicans joined Democrats to pass it.
The resolution previously passed the House in a bipartisan vote.
While the resolution is mostly symbolic and does not hold the force of law, Democrats argue the ongoing war is now illegal — rejecting suggestions that current operations are considered a different conflict and subject to a new 60-day clock.
Senate Democrats are expected to force a vote this week on another war powers resolution to rein in Trump’s military authority — although, like the others, it will be a mostly symbolic gesture.
Meanwhile, there are some Senate Republicans eyeing ways to reclaim congressional oversight over the conflict.
“I think it’s clear that it is time for Congress to act,” Curtis said. “That doesn’t mean that it’s necessarily acting (by) restraining the president, but it’s acting (by) defining what this looks like — and there’s no manual for that.”
One way to do that is by voting on an authorization of military force, or AUMF, which does not formally declare war but gives the president congressional approval to conduct military action. Curtis has previously engaged in talks to draft an AUMF, although those efforts stalled during the ceasefire period.
Still, other Republicans have suggested they’d be inclined to support some sort of measure that gives Congress an opportunity to weigh in.
“I think some sort of authorization of force should be part of that,” Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., who voted in favor of the war powers resolutions, said. “I just know Congress needs to be involved.”
Those frustrations came to a head as senators grilled administration officials on Tuesday, including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who insisted the president was acting within his bounds.
“The War Powers Resolution is not ambiguous. It requires the president to terminate hostilities within 60 days absent congressional authorization,” Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, who also voted to rein in Trump’s war powers, said to the defense secretary. “Is the administration still taking the position about needing no authorization from Congress?”
“We have all the authorities necessary at this moment,” Hegseth replied.
Democrats look to cut off defense funding
Meanwhile, Democrats are eyeing more tangible ways to restrict military operations. One way to do that: block defense spending until guardrails can be put in place in Iran.
The House and Senate are poised to advance the National Defense Authorization Act in the coming days and weeks, the annual defense bill that outlines the Pentagon’s budget for the next fiscal year. Democrats have vowed to reject the NDAA, which typically passes in a bipartisan vote, until operations in Iran are scaled back.
“We will not take up an NDAA that does not include some significant discussion about a war that Congress has now declared is illegal,” Kaine said. “Both houses, under Republican majority, have said this war is illegal, and so I don’t see us, just now, turning a blind eye to that with respect to the NDAA.”
Some Republicans who oppose the war extending past the legal window have agreed that withholding funds is the best way to reassert congressional authority. Curtis, for example, has said he won’t approve any requests pertaining to costs outside the original 90-day timeline beginning in early March.
“For me, it’s always been about funding,” Curtis told the Deseret News last week. “That is our lever.”
Not all Republicans want to pull back
Although Republicans are pushing for more clarity about the White House’s goals in Iran, not all GOP lawmakers want to constrain the president. Some even say that means going beyond negotiations and diplomatic talks.
“I think the president has been working very hard to find a diplomatic solution. Clearly the Iranians don’t have the same interest,” said Sen. Mike Rounds of South Dakota. “So, what we need to know from our leadership team is what does it take for our armed forces to resolve this situation as best we can once and for all.”
“It may very well mean having a plan to militarily resolve this situation,” he added.
Other GOP senators echoed that sentiment, including Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker, R-Miss., who said the U.S. should “go ahead and finish the job in Iran.”
Republican leaders defend Trump administration
Despite the lack of congressional oversight, Republican leaders on Capitol Hill have maintained their support of the Trump administration as it engages in the conflict overseas — even as it raises concerns before the midterm elections.
House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., told reporters on Tuesday that the administration is “working very hard to bring this to resolution” although acknowledged the path forward is not yet clear.
“There’s a lot of discussions about how that would be done. We’re all closely watching those developments,” Johnson said. “My view is that everybody needs to play a role. So we’ll see how that develops. I think we have to allow the space to do that, and I know that this administration is working around the clock to resolve that in a way so they don’t suffer any more troop losses.”
House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., brushed off criticism from Democrats that the objective of the conflict is unclear.
“It’s stopping Iran from getting a nuclear weapon,” Scalise said. “It’s going to get resolved.”
Still, Republican leaders have acknowledged the economic concerns stemming from the war, particularly in terms of gas and oil. The surge in prices is expected to become a major political messaging point heading into November when Republicans will have to defend their slim majorities.
“That’s going to have an economic consequence and economic consequences always have political consequences and we’re looking at political consequences in November,” North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis, who is retiring after this year, said this week.
Thune recognized the economic squeeze, noting the administration’s goal of reopening the Strait of Hormuz is central to bringing prices back down.
“That to me is the key consideration in all this,” Thune said. “What the president is insisting on is (that) the strait be open. The Iranians are violating international law by having blockades there.”
