10
Loading video...
By Dan Gooding
Associate News Editor
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
Four Republican senators backed a resolution Tuesday that will force a War Powers Act debate on President Donald Trump's war in Iran.
Among those voting yes on the measure was Louisiana Senator Bill Cassidy, fresh off his primary loss to Trump-backed opponent Representative Julia Letlow. Cassidy's support was enough to tip the number of those in favor of the measure—which has seen multiple attempts—reach a majority.
"While I support the administration's efforts to dismantle Iran’s nuclear program, the White House and Pentagon have left Congress in the dark on Operation Epic Fury," Cassidy wrote on X Tuesday evening. "In Louisiana, I’ve heard from people, including President Trump’s supporters, who are concerned about this war. Until the administration provides clarity, no congressional authorization or extension can be justified."
Read More on Politics
The 50-47 vote means the Senate will now look at whether it wants to force the president to withdraw U.S. troops from Iran, nearly three months into the conflict there, and after seven failed attempts.
Why This Matters Now
A war powers debate in the Senate would underscore a fundamental question at the heart of U.S. foreign policy: how much authority the president should have to use military force without explicit congressional approval.
While presidents have increasingly acted unilaterally in modern conflicts, such a debate could signal that lawmakers are seeking to reassert their constitutional role, and it could force the administration to publicly justify its strategy, legal rationale and objectives at a moment when public support for the war, and its effects, is low.
GOP Senators Vote Against Trump
...
Cassidy was not alone on his side of the aisle in voting in favor of the war powers debate.
Kentucky's Rand Paul, Maine's Susan Collins and Alaska's Lisa Murkowski have all voted yes in previous attempts, but their votes were not enough to force a debate.
Following his primary defeat, Cassidy said he was returning to Washington, D.C., to continue his work of upholding the Constitution, adding that he would carefully consider how he would vote on Trump administration priorities.
While only one extra vote, Cassidy's flip on the matter could reflect a growing unease among Republicans around the Iran war, which stretches on without a clear end, or deal, in sight.
All Democrats apart from one voted in favor of the debate. Pennsylvania Senator John Fetterman, who has shown strong support for Trump's efforts in the Middle East, voted against it.
Speaking on CNN Tuesday night amid incoming primary results, Scott Jennings, former adviser to President George W. Bush, said, "I will say is a matter of like Senate legislative affairs, if you're sitting in the White House ... the Senate Republicans are going to be less governable now than they were previously, we saw Cassidy's vote on the war powers, you know we'll see what happens to Cornyn here, you already had Tillis laying out there and others, and so you know it's a majority but if you have a few people who are willing to go the other way on certain issues, it's harder to get them aligned."
Jennings added that the House Republicans are likely "a little more align-able."
What Is the War Powers Act?
A war powers debate is essentially a forced congressional discussion and vote on U.S. military action.
- Under the 1973 law, Congress can introduce a “privileged” resolution requiring a vote on whether U.S. forces should remain involved in a conflict.
- These resolutions can bypass leadership and must be debated and voted on, even if the majority party would prefer to avoid it.
- They are often used by lawmakers who want to challenge or scrutinize a president’s military decisions.
- It’s one of the few tools lawmakers have to compel a public, on-the-record debate about an ongoing war.
What Could This Mean for Trump?
Tuesday's vote increases pressure on the White House, including the president, to justify both the legal basis and long-term strategy for the war.
While any binding resolution would still face steep hurdles—including a likely presidential veto—the fact that the Senate is now moving forward with debate forces the administration to engage publicly with critics.
Lawmakers can use the process to demand clarity on objectives, costs and timelines, particularly as concerns mount over the war’s economic impact and potential escalation. Even without becoming law, these debates can influence decision-making by raising the political cost of continuing or expanding the conflict.
What Happens Next
The Senate will now need to schedule the debate, opening up the potential for legislation that would force Trump to withdraw U.S. troops.
Correction 05/19/26, 7:30 p.m.: A previous version of this article misstated which senator discussed voting on White House policies after enduring a primary defeat to a Trump-backed opponent. It was corrected to reflect that Republican Bill Cassidy shared this sentiment.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines