I will get it done, one way or the other, because I always get it done.
In a rare assertion of congressional authority over executive war-making, the Senate voted 50 to 48 on Tuesday to direct President Trump to withdraw American forces from hostilities with Iran — the first time both chambers have united behind such a measure since the conflict began in February. Four Republicans broke with their party to join nearly all Democrats, invoking the War Powers Resolution of 1973 in a rebuke that Trump swiftly dismissed as meaningless. The vote does not settle the deeper constitutional contest between a president who denies any active hostilities exist and a Congress insisting its consent is required — but it marks a widening fracture in the architecture of wartime deference that has long favored the executive.
- For the first time in this conflict, both chambers of Congress have spoken in unison, directing the president to halt military engagement with Iran absent explicit congressional authorization.
- Trump fired back within hours, calling the resolution 'poorly timed and meaningless' and branding the four Republican defectors — Collins, Cassidy, Murkowski, and Paul — as 'losers' undermining his mission.
- The administration's counter-argument — that U.S. forces are not in active hostilities and that the War Powers Resolution is itself unconstitutional — threatens to render the binding measure practically toothless.
- Democrats have now forced ten war powers votes since February, methodically chipping away at Republican solidarity and building toward a joint resolution that would require a presidential signature and carry far greater weight.
- The path forward is narrow but deliberate: Senate Democrats are calculating when to advance Tim Kaine's joint resolution, hoping Tuesday's momentum converts enough Republican holdouts to make a veto override conceivable.
The Senate voted Tuesday to direct President Trump to withdraw American forces from hostilities with Iran, passing a concurrent resolution 50 to 48 in a historic first — both chambers of Congress aligned against the president's handling of a war now entering its fifth month. Four Republicans crossed the aisle: Susan Collins, Bill Cassidy, Lisa Murkowski, and Rand Paul. One Democrat, John Fetterman, voted no. Because the measure is a concurrent resolution, it carries binding force under the War Powers Resolution of 1973 without requiring the president's signature.
The practical weight of the vote remains contested. The Trump administration maintains that U.S. forces are not engaged in active hostilities — a framing that would neutralize the resolution entirely — and some officials have gone further, arguing the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional to begin with. Trump called the measure 'poorly timed and meaningless' on Truth Social and attacked the Republican dissenters personally, vowing to prevail regardless.
The resolution's passage was the product of months of Democratic persistence. The House had failed three times before succeeding on June 3, when four Republicans — Thomas Massie, Brian Fitzpatrick, Tom Barrett, and Warren Davidson — joined a unified Democratic caucus. Senate Minority Leader Schumer framed the vote as a test of Republican sincerity, arguing that private complaints about the war meant nothing without public action.
Democrats are already looking ahead. Representative Greg Meeks, the resolution's author, pledged to pursue every legal avenue for enforcement. Meanwhile, Senator Tim Kaine's separate joint resolution — which would require a presidential signature and thus a potential veto fight — is advancing, and Democrats are strategizing about when to force that next confrontation, hoping Tuesday's result gives them the leverage to bring more Republicans along.
The Senate voted on Tuesday to direct President Trump to withdraw American forces from hostilities with Iran unless Congress explicitly authorizes continued military action. The measure passed 50 to 48, with four Republicans breaking ranks to join nearly all Senate Democrats in support. It was the first time both chambers of Congress had approved such a resolution, a historic moment that underscored deepening fractures within the Republican Party over the president's handling of the conflict that began in late February.
The four Republicans who voted yes were Susan Collins of Maine, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and Rand Paul of Kentucky. One Democrat, John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, voted against the measure. Mitch McConnell and Dave McCormick, both Republicans, did not vote. The resolution itself does not require the president's signature—it is a concurrent resolution, which under the War Powers Resolution of 1973 carries binding force if Congress directs the president to withdraw forces from hostilities.
Yet the practical impact of Tuesday's vote may be limited. The Trump administration has consistently argued that U.S. forces are not currently engaged in active hostilities with Iran, a position that would render the resolution moot. Some administration officials have gone further, contending that the War Powers Resolution itself is unconstitutional. Within hours of the Senate's passage, Trump posted on Truth Social that the measure was "poorly timed and meaningless," and he attacked the four Republicans who voted for it as "losers" who had made his job harder. "I will get it done, one way or the other, because I always get it done," he wrote.
The resolution's journey through Congress reflects months of Democratic pressure and shifting Republican sentiment. The House had voted on similar measures three times before this one succeeded on June 3, when four Republicans joined all Democrats to pass it. Those Republican votes came after GOP leadership abruptly pulled a vote before Memorial Day, recognizing they lacked the numbers to block passage. The four House Republicans who crossed over were Thomas Massie of Kentucky, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Tom Barrett of Michigan, and Warren Davidson of Ohio. A Democratic representative from Maine, Jared Golden, who had previously opposed such measures, voted yes this time, giving Democrats unanimity on the issue for the first time.
Greg Meeks, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the resolution's author, said he would "explore all legal avenues" to ensure the executive branch complies with Congress's will. "This measure is binding under the War Powers Resolution," Meeks stated. "Congress never authorized this failed war, and the president certainly has no authority to continue it indefinitely without our consent as the Constitution demands."
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer had urged Republicans to join Democrats before the vote, framing it as a test of whether the GOP truly wanted the war to end or merely complained about it in private. "The only way to ensure this war ends once and for all is for Republicans to act," Schumer said. The Senate vote marked the tenth time Democrats have forced a war powers vote since the conflict began, a relentless campaign to put Republicans on record and gradually peel away support.
The Senate has also been working on a separate measure—a joint resolution introduced by Tim Kaine of Virginia—that would require the president's signature and thus face a higher bar for implementation. That measure advanced on a procedural vote last month with the same four Republicans voting yes, though three GOP absences helped it pass 50 to 47. Democrats are now strategizing about when to force the next vote on Kaine's resolution, hoping to convert more Republican defectors before moving forward. An earlier attempt on a resolution from Raphael Warnock of Georgia failed to advance due to three Democratic absences. The outcome on Tuesday may provide Democrats the momentum they need to press their advantage.
Citas Notables
This measure is binding under the War Powers Resolution. Congress never authorized this failed war, and the president certainly has no authority to continue it indefinitely without our consent as the Constitution demands.— Rep. Gregory Meeks, House Foreign Affairs Committee
The only way to ensure this war ends once and for all is for Republicans to act.— Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why does it matter that this is a concurrent resolution rather than a joint resolution?
A concurrent resolution doesn't need the president's signature to be binding—it's already law if Congress passes it. A joint resolution would require Trump to sign it or Congress to override a veto. One is a direct order; the other is a request he can refuse.
But the administration says forces aren't in hostilities with Iran anyway. So doesn't that make the resolution toothless?
Potentially, yes. But that's also the point—Democrats are trying to establish on the record what Congress's authority is, and to narrow the space where the administration can operate without explicit approval. It's a legal and political marker.
Four Republicans voted yes. That's not a lot. Why is that significant?
Because it's the first time in either chamber that Republicans crossed over on this issue. It shows the war is becoming a liability even within the party. Each vote makes the next defection easier.
Trump called them losers. Will that scare off other Republicans?
It might. But it might also embolden them—some of these senators, like Murkowski and Collins, have weathered Trump's attacks before. The question is whether the political cost of supporting the war is now higher than the cost of defying Trump.
What happens next?
Democrats are trying to build on this momentum. They have another measure pending that would require Trump's signature. If they can flip a few more Republicans, they might be able to override a veto. But that's still a long way off.