Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.

The Republican-controlled U.S. Senate on Friday rejected a Democratic effort to limit President Donald Trump’s authority to launch further military action against Iran—just hours after Trump said he was weighing additional airstrikes.

The chamber voted 53–47 against the war powers resolution, which would have required the president to seek congressional approval for any new hostilities against Iran. Every senator cast a vote, but the tally remained open late into the evening.

In a notable split, Democrat John Fetterman broke with his party to vote “no,” while Republican Rand Paul crossed the aisle to vote “yes.”

Why It Matters

The vote came days after Trump ordered airstrikes on three major Iranian nuclear sites over the weekend, escalating tensions amid Iran’s conflict with Israel. Iran retaliated by firing missiles at a U.S. military base in Qatar on Monday.

Although Tehran and Tel Aviv agreed to a ceasefire on Monday, the Israel Defense Forces have since accused Iran of breaching that agreement and have threatened strikes on Tehran in response—an accusation Iran’s military denies.

The Senate’s decision marks a clear victory for the White House and shows how much latitude both Republicans and some Democrats are willing to give Trump to take unilateral military action against Iran.

President Donald Trump speaks to the media, Friday, June 27, 2025, in the briefing room of the White House in Washington. President Donald Trump speaks to the media, Friday, June 27, 2025, in the briefing room of the White House in Washington. Jacquelyn Martin/AP

What To Know

The measure, sponsored by Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, would have invoked the War Powers Act—the 1973 law designed to limit a president’s authority to enter armed conflicts without congressional consent. It would have required the White House to notify lawmakers and secure approval from both the House and Senate before U.S. forces could take any additional military action against Iran.

Many Democrats, and even some Republicans, argued that the White House should have sought congressional approval before authorizing last weekend’s strike. They point out that the Constitution gives Congress—not the president—the power to declare war, and say the War Powers Act exists to stop presidents from sidestepping that responsibility.

Under the Constitution, war powers are divided but not always clearly defined. Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the power “to declare war,” “raise and support armies,” “provide and maintain a navy,” and “make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.” This means Congress has the explicit authority to decide when the U.S. goes to war. But the last time Congress formally declared war was World War II. Since then, military actions—from Korea and Vietnam to Iraq, Libya, and Syria—have typically been carried out under broad authorizations, U.N. resolutions, or purely at the president’s discretion.

At the same time, Article II, Section 2 names the president as “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States.” This gives the president broad authority to direct the military once it is in action.

In 1973, after the Vietnam War, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution to rein in presidential war-making. It requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying troops and limits such deployments to 60 days—with a 30-day withdrawal period—unless Congress explicitly approves or declares war. Still, presidents of both parties have often argued that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional, or they’ve simply ignored its requirements.

During his first term, Trump twice vetoed measures passed under the War Powers Act, including one aimed specifically at restricting his ability to strike Iran. Congress wrestled with similar questions in 2011, when President Barack Obama ordered airstrikes on Libya without explicit approval, drawing criticism that he had exceeded his authority.

This time, the Trump administration has enjoyed strong backing from Republican leaders on Capitol Hill. House Speaker Mike Johnson has gone so far as to argue that the War Powers Act itself is unconstitutional. Meanwhile, Republican leaders have accused Democrats of using the issue for political gain and say the president needs flexibility to respond to threats quickly. “Democrats, of course, rushed to turn this successful strike into a political fight,” said Senator John Barrasso, the chamber’s No. 2 Republican, insisting that “national security moves fast” and that requiring consultation with Congress could “prevent the president from protecting us in the future.”

But some Republicans disagree. Senator Rand Paul cited the framers’ original intent to keep war-making powers in the hands of Congress. “Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers that the executive is the branch most prone to war. Therefore, the Constitution, with studied care, vested that power in the legislature,” Paul said, explaining his rare break with his party.

For its part, the Trump administration argues the president already has all the authority he needs. In a letter to Congress this week, Trump cited his constitutional powers as commander in chief and his responsibility for foreign policy, framing the Iran strike as an act of “collective self-defense of our ally, Israel.”

What People Are Saying

Republican Senator John Barrasso said on the Senate floor: “Democrats, of course, rushed to turn this successful strike into a political fight. National security moves fast. That’s why our Constitution says: ‘Give the commander in chief real authority.'”

Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen said: “What would we have said if Iran or any other country had flown bombers over our country and struck our facilities? We would rightly call it what it was: an act of war.”

Democratic Senator Tim Kaine said: “War is too big an issue to leave to the moods and the whims and the daily vibes of any one person.”

What Happens Next

Efforts to rein in Trump’s military powers are also underway in the House, where similar measures have been introduced, but they face uncertain prospects in a Republican-led chamber unlikely to defy the White House.