Dems Have an Opportunity to Force an End to the Iran War. Will They Take It?

Democrats Weigh Legislative Steps on U.S. Military Operations Involving Iran

For months, Democratic members of Congress have pressed for repeated votes on resolutions concerning President Donald Trump’s military operations against Iran. Those votes now coincide with the period before the next Congress convenes on January 3, creating potential openings for further action on funding and authorizations.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York has not detailed a specific plan for the lame-duck session. Legislative efforts to date have produced limited statutory changes. One approach under discussion involves linking restrictions to must-pass spending measures, which carries the possibility of a government shutdown if no agreement is reached.

Hannah Morris, vice president of government affairs at J Street, stated that such steps would test whether Democrats are prepared to use leverage on spending. “It will certainly demonstrate whether Democrats are willing to stretch themselves and put up a fight and get uncomfortable,” she said. “So much of the rhetoric has been about the Iran war.”

Since the start of operations on February 28, opponents have focused primarily on measures under the 1973 War Powers Resolution. That statute requires the president to notify Congress of the introduction of U.S. forces into hostilities and limits the duration of such involvement absent congressional authorization. In June, both chambers passed a resolution invoking the statute. The Trump administration has stated that the resolution is unconstitutional and has continued operations.

Advocates maintain that the June vote remains legally relevant, while acknowledging that funding restrictions could carry greater practical effect. Any effort to impose such restrictions must address timing, internal party divisions, and the procedural requirements of appropriations bills.

One option centers on the continuing resolution set to expire December 11. Lawmakers could seek to add language barring the use of appropriated funds for the Iran operations. Failure to enact a new measure by the deadline would result in a lapse in discretionary spending across the federal government.

Jeffries declined to commit to that tactic in a recent CNN interview. “Listen, we’ll deal with the appropriations process when we deal with the appropriations process,” he said. “Right now, the mechanism that is in front of us will be to aggressively move war powers resolutions until we end this war in the best interest of the American people.”

Some Democratic candidates have addressed funding questions more directly. In Michigan’s 7th Congressional District, environmental activist Will Lawrence criticized Republican Rep. Tom Barrett during a debate for supporting continued funding despite Barrett’s vote for a war powers resolution.

Morris noted uncertainty about the willingness of Democratic leadership to force a shutdown. “Will they be willing to shut down the government over this? I don’t have real answers. I think there are a lot of variables here,” she said.

A second avenue involves the National Defense Authorization Act. That annual measure sets policy and funding levels for the Department of Defense. Hassan El-Tayyab, legislative director for Middle East policy at the Friends Committee on National Legislation, argued that the bill could include provisions limiting authorization for the current operations. “That’s the mandate we’re seeing from the American people,” he said. “They shouldn’t pass a massive defense bill while leaving the administration free to pursue yet another open-ended war in the Middle East.”

The NDAA is treated as essential legislation by most members. Senate Democrats could use the filibuster to delay or block it absent restrictions. The office of Sen. Jack Reed, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, did not respond to inquiries about the chamber’s plans.

Absent agreement on funding or authorization measures, members could continue to offer additional War Powers Resolution resolutions. With projected gains in the midterm elections, Democrats could seek Republican support for such measures in the current session.

After January 3, control of one or both chambers would give the party greater influence over the legislative calendar, committee oversight, and spending priorities. Rep. Adam Smith of Washington, ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, indicated openness to multiple approaches but noted constraints. “I am open to exploring options for using the NDAA or appropriations bills as a way to end the war,” Smith said in a statement. “That effort would most likely require bipartisan support. Unfortunately, I am not confident that there is sufficient Republican will or support for such legislative efforts or to override an inevitable veto.”

Brian Finucane, a former State Department official now at the International Crisis Group, said that restrictions on spending represent the most direct mechanism for compelling negotiations. “If they are serious,” he said, “they should be willing to play hardball, and that would require using the power of the purse.”

The administration has maintained that the president retains independent constitutional authority to direct military operations in defense of U.S. interests without prior congressional approval, a position advanced by prior administrations of both parties when contesting War Powers Resolution constraints. No additional statutory prohibition on funding has been enacted since operations began.

Democratic candidates who campaigned on ending the operations will face decisions on whether to tie those goals to year-end spending legislation or to defer action until the new Congress. The continuing resolution and the NDAA remain the principal vehicles under active discussion.