Congress Invokes War Powers Resolution on Iran War
Sound and fury, signifying nothing?
NYT (“Senate Votes to Check Trump’s War Powers, Rebuking Him on Iran“):
The Senate on Tuesday adopted a resolution instructing President Trump to end the war in Iran or seek congressional authorization to continue it, delivering the most significant bipartisan rebuke yet of the conflict.
The resolution does not have the force of law and is therefore unlikely to compel an immediate change in policy. But the 50-to-48 vote — in which four Republicans joined Democrats in favor — marked a striking break by the G.O.P.-led Congress with a president who has faced little resistance from his party on any topic, particularly matters of war and national security.
It came as Republicans in Congress have expressed skepticism and alarm about the cease-fire agreement Mr. Trump struck with the Iranians, as the conflict approaches its fifth month. The measure underscored G.O.P. impatience about continuing to defer to the president, who has never sought approval from Congress for the war, as further negotiations over its end appear precarious and Mr. Trump has threatened more military action.
The vote was also the latest evidence of tension over the war inside the Republican Party, which faces a punishing political environment ahead of midterm elections in which G.O.P. control of Congress is at stake. With polls showing the conflict deeply unpopular, some lawmakers in the party have voiced concerns about its economic toll, uncertain objectives and the risk of a broader regional escalation.
Tuesday’s vote marked the first time since the enactment of the War Powers Resolution of 1973 that both chambers of Congress have approved a concurrent resolution directing a president to end a military conflict. The House passed the measure this month after Republican leaders who had tried to block it were unable to keep the party unified in opposition.
In the Senate on Tuesday, Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania was the lone Democrat to vote against the resolution. Senators Rand Paul of Kentucky, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine and Bill Cassidy of Louisiana broke with fellow Republicans and supported the measure. Their backing and the absence of two Republicans who have opposed such measures in the past, including Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, who was recently hospitalized, allowed the resolution to prevail.
Given how many conflicts the United States has engaged in since 1973, the fact that this is the first invocation of the Resolution is noteworthy. Then again, despite Presidents from both parties (including Richard Nixon, over whose veto it passed) insisting it was unconstitutional, most have more or less followed it. Our most significant conflicts since then—the Gulf War and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq—were blessed by a Congressional Authorization to Use Military Force. Really, this is the first time since the Libya operation in 2011 that a President sent the military to war without Congressional authorization and exceeded the 180 days technically allowed without it. (Many, many others, though, have violated the letter and spirit of the WPR.)
That a handful of Republican Representatives and Senators have now voted against President Trump on a matter of this gravity is also noteworthy. Paul, Collins, and Murkowski are the usual suspects, though, and Cassidy just lost his renomination bid to a Trump-endorsed primary opponent, so the political risk is low.
Alas, as noted in the report, passage of a mere Resolution by itself has no power. If a President is willing to thumb his nose at Congress—and Trump has repeatedly done so—he can do so. Doing something about that—whether withholding funds or impeachment—would be a much harder hill to climb and, alas, I’ve yet to see evidence of that kind of spine.
Aside from the politics, the timing is less than stellar. As covered in several previous posts, the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding under which most hostilities have stopped so negotiations on a final settlement can proceed are arguably worse than the status quo ante bellum. The inabilty to resume hostilities would not exactly enhance our bargaining power.
And so the excuse will go when this administration fails its negotiations. Trump never fails, he can only be failed.
As Dr. J noted, a Congressional rebuke is meaningless to a President who has ignored Congress since Jan 20, 2025. As far as this action hamstringing the US position vis a vis the MoU, what’s the difference? The war was ‘illegal’ from the jump and Trump didn’t (and doesn’t) care about such niceties. Trump wanted the cows that were in the barn and he got them before Congress came along and shut the barn door. (Notice the pattern: Trump wants to do something, he does it, a judge or Congress tells him he shouldn’t have done it, and by then the damage is already undo-able. Trump wins! Someone else is called in to clean up the mess.)
As I’ve said before, a trumpic quagmire is one where the war aims are not achieved, and the enemy winds up in a stronger strategic position.
Here’s a topic that everybody yawns about. Deficits and Debt. It is continuing to grow regardless of administration. I am astonished that there is a simultaneous discussion of tax cuts and a $1.5T defense budget from this administration which is cut off from any recognition that the money has to be borrowed.
Here is an article from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget:
GAO Calls for ‘Urgent and Sustained Action’ on National Debt
I know, boring stuff. And I will have passed on by then.
@Scott:
What is the Noah Smith’s comment on deficits, something to the effect of, they’re a dark infinity hallway with an invisible pit somewhere ahead of you.
The current debt is already causing long term federal bonds to pay higher interest rates to attract investors. Yes, both the president and the congress have migrated to the land of magical thinking on the debt.