• Senate Prepares for Second Vote on Iran War Powers

• House to Consider Two War Powers Resolutions on Iran, Lebanon

• Rubio Testimony

• The “United States-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative”

• House Members Press for More Answers on the Minab Strike

This week in Congress will see Secretary of State Marco Rubio testify in both the Senate and House on the State Department budget, votes in the House and Senate on Iran war powers resolutions, a vote on a separate Lebanon war powers resolution, and a consequential committee showdown over an effort to more closely tie the U.S. and Israeli militaries together.

All of this follows a one-week recess and significant progress in advancing war powers resolutions. Prior to recess, the Senate cleared a key procedural hurdle to advance a War Powers Resolution aimed at limiting the administration’s military operations against Iran, while House Republicans delayed and ultimately pulled a similar vote amid signs the resolution may have had enough support to pass.

Since then, negotiations on a memorandum of understanding that would formally end the war between the United States and Iran have met newfound complications amid escalating Israeli military action in Lebanon, with Iran reportedly breaking off all informal contacts with the U.S. in response. That news has sent oil prices spiking, which may influence expected votes this week. Congress is expected to holdWar Powers votes in both chambers, ensuring continued scrutiny of the administration’s conduct during the war and its use of military force without congressional authorization.

Senate Advances War Powers Resolution

Before recess, the Senate finally advanced an Iran war powers resolution from Sen. Tim Kaine (S.J.Res.185) by narrowly voting to approve a discharge petition to bring the measure to the floor, marking a key procedural step toward limiting President Trump’s authority to continue military operations against Iran without congressional authorization.

This sets up the Senate for a second vote on a “motion to proceed” to consider the resolution, which would then set up a third vote on final passage. Timing has not been finalized as of the time of publication, but is expected for this week. If no votes change and the Senate sees full attendance, the resolution could be headed for a 50-50 tie. Under such a scenario, Vice President JD Vance would be expected to break the tie and vote the resolution down. The spectacle of the Vice President being forced to intervene to stop a Republican-majority Congress from voting to end the war would further reinforce how much of a political liability the conflict has become as lawmakers head into the midterms. Such a step could come with costs for Vance as well, further linking him to an unpopular war despite his efforts to cultivate an image as a restrainer and opponent of forever wars. However, it is possible that the vote will pass, regardless of the tiebreaker working in the administration’s favor.

On the earlier discharge petition, the Senate voted 50–47 with Republican Senators Susan Collins (ME), Lisa Murkowski (AK), Rand Paul (KY) repeating their votes for an Iran war powers resolution and Bill Cassidy (LA) joining them for the first time. All Democrats except for Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) again voted for it. With three Republicans absent, the measure was able to move forward despite lacking a majority of the chamber.

The Republican defections were politically significant, reflecting growing concerns within the GOP over the political and economic fallout of the war, particularly soaring gas prices that have increasingly become a major liability for Republicans in their home states. Senator Bill Cassidy’s support was especially notable given that it came just days after he lost his primary race, leaving him with far less political incentive to remain aligned with party leadership or the administration’s position on the war as he no longer faces reelection pressure. After seven prior failed attempts to advance similar legislation, the successful discharge vote represented the first major procedural breakthrough for congressional opponents of the war.

House to Consider Two War Powers Resolutions on Iran, Lebanon

This week, the House of Representatives will try again to vote on an Iran war powers resolution (H.Con.Res.86) from Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY) as well as a separate Lebanon war powers resolution (H.Con.Res.84) from Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI). After the procedural win in the Senate, the Meeks resolution was expected to receive a vote amid speculation that it had the votes to pass. But in a dramatic move, House Republican leadership abruptly canceled the vote before it could formally reach the floor.

In the prior House War Powers vote the week before, Republican Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick (PA) and Tom Barrett (MI) had already broken with leadership, marking new cracks in GOP unity. Heading into the expected next vote, additional Republican movement, combined with an anticipated “yes” from Representative Jared Golden, who had previously voted with Republicans to block earlier resolutions, would have been enough to push the measure over the threshold for passage. Representative Gregory Meeks, who introduced the measure, stated afterward: “We had the votes without question and they knew it.”

Rather than risk a public defeat, House Republican leadership indefinitely delayed consideration of the measure until lawmakers return from recess this week. Now, this week’s vote is likely in a very similar position, with passage or failure depending on how many lawmakers show up to the vote and whether opposition to the war among Republicans continues to grow.

Tlaib’s war powers resolution focuses on U.S. support in green-lighting Israel’s military operations in Lebanon, which are conducted with many U.S. munitions. Israel has been escalating its campaign there with U.S. approval, which has also led to strong objections from Iran, which has insisted that the ongoing ceasefire applies to the Lebanon theater of the war as well and that the continuation of hostilities there will threaten the entire ceasefire. While it is unlikely to pass, the vote may well represent a new high water mark in Congressional opposition to Israeli military operations in Lebanon.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s Testimony on Iran

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio is expected to testify on the State Department budget in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday, and in the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Wednesday. Following prior high profile testimony from Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, this will be yet another rare moment when a cabinet-level administration official will face Congressional questioning on the war in Iran and other topics.

Secretary Rubio is intimately involved in foreign policy given his dual-hatted role as both Secretary of State and national security advisor. A long-time hawk on Iran, Rubio has largely kept a low profile on Iran policy, with earlier negotiations being led by Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and the President’s son-in-law Jared Kushner. We expect robust questioning of the administration’s policy on Iran and hope for tough questions on the administration’s throttling of visa issuances as well.

The “United States-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative”

On Thursday, the House Armed Services Committee is set to consider the National Defense Authorization Act, which contains a controversial provision that would further enmesh the U.S. and Israeli militaries in deeply troubling ways. Sec. 224 of the bill, entitled the “United States-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative” mandates that the Pentagon “fuse the U.S. and Israeli defense sectors in multiple areas vital to the battlefields of the future.” This would be accomplished via the creation of an Executive Agent at the Pentagon who would be tasked “to expand and accelerate bilateral defense technology research, development, testing, evaluation, integration, and industrial cooperation” between the U.S. and Israel, spanning everything from artificial intelligence - which has been utilized heavily in Israel’s ongoing genocide in Gaza - to drone technology, to network integration and defense industrial base cooperation.

Such a move runs sharply counter to growing public opposition to Israeli military operations in the Middle East, U.S. support for them and concern about Israeli influence over U.S. policy. This effort to further fuse the Israeli military - accused directly of genocide - with the American military raises significant concerns over the short, medium and long term, and would likely augur very poorly for those who want to end the war in Iran and end American militarism in the Middle East and around the world. Congressional leaders have already spoken out against it, including Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) who has vowed to oppose it in committee and Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), who has vowed to oppose it if it reaches the House floor. It remains unclear whether those amendments will secure sufficient support to strip the provision from being included in the “must-pass” defense policy bill, or whether it would be included in a similar Senate version of the same package. Expect more updates on this critical development shortly.

House Members Press for More Answers on the Minab Strike

Beyond the escalating War Powers fight, House Democrats are also increasing pressure on the Pentagon and CENTCOM over the ongoing investigation into the February strike on the Minab girls’ school in Iran, which killed more than 150 civilians, including 120 young schoolchildren.

In a recent House Armed Services Committee hearing, Ranking Member Adam Smith (D-WA), alongside Representative Sara Jacobs (D-CA), who helped lead the initial congressional letter on the strike, pressed CENTCOM on the status of the investigation and the U.S. role in the incident. Jacobs specifically pressed for clarity on the broader pattern of school bombings during the war, asking CENTCOM’s Adm. Cooper how many of the reported strikes on schools in Iran involved U.S. munitions. In response, Cooper suggested that out of 39 schools bombed in Iran, only one involved U.S. munitions, the Minab strike, a statement that, if accurate, would imply that Israel was responsible for the remaining strikes.

Ranking Member Adam Smith emphasized the significance of the Minab school bombing, saying, “It’s really pretty clear what happened there,” and noting that in previous cases the U.S. military has often acknowledged mistakes even while investigations were still ongoing. He pressed further, asking: “Can you, at this moment, acknowledge that that mistake was made, and that we were responsible for it? It’s something we didn’t want to do, and don’t want to repeat?”

Cooper declined to take responsibility, responding that “The United States does not deliberately target civilians.” He added that the school is located near what he described as an “active” IRGC cruise missile base, making the incident “more complex than the average strike,” and pledged transparency once the investigation concludes.

Smith pushed back on the response, stating, “I do not trust that answer. What we’ve seen out of this Secretary of Defense (Pete Hegseth) and his callous disregard for any sort of rules of engagement or protecting civilian life may make us suspicious.”

CENTCOM officials said the investigation on the Minab strike remains ongoing but that the process is nearing its end. Representative Jacobs also pressed during questioning that the findings of the investigation would be shared with the public once completed.

Together with the War Powers debate, the Minab case has become part of a broader push in Congress for both limits on the use of force and greater accountability for civilian casualties in the war.

• First Republican Flip in the Senate

• The 60 Day Deadline has Passed - Now What?

• Republicans Begin Drafting War Authorization

• Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth Faces Congress

• Looking Ahead — More War Powers Votes Incoming

• Bicameral Push for Temporary Protected Status for Iranians

Last week we saw movement but no breakthroughs in Congressional efforts to pass an Iran War Powers resolution to terminate the President’s war in Iran. With the war crossing the 60-day mark – a critical legal deadline for the President to secure Congressional authorization for unauthorized hostilities under the War Powers Act – scrutiny of the administration’s actions on Capitol Hill is intensifying. The moment is exposing divisions within the Republican Party and raising new questions about whether the Trump administration will proceed with seeking a formal authorization for war or continue operating illegally without it.

Perhaps relatedly, President Trump is now suggesting that the U.S. and Iran are close to reaching a memorandum of understanding to end the war (and avoid any need for Congressional authorization). See NIAC’s official statement on those latest reports. Nonetheless, the massive humanitarian and fiscal impact of this war, along with its significant illegality, will still demand accountability and oversight from Congress.

First Republican Flip in the Senate

Last week, the Senate voted on S.J.Res. 184, the latest Iran War Powers Resolution led by Senator Adam Schiff (D-CA). While all five previous war powers votes had retained the same vote outcome, Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) became the first Republican besides Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) to break with her party and vote in favor of the Iran war powers resolution after voting against it previously.

Senator Collins’ shift is significant. Up until now, Republican leadership has largely held the line against war powers resolutions, even as concerns about escalation and lack of authorization have grown. Collins’ reversal signals potential cracks in that unified front, particularly as the legal and political pressure surrounding the war intensifies.

This development comes as Congress moves closer to another round of votes that could determine whether Congress will meaningfully reassert its authority over war-making by finally passing a war powers resolution.

The 60 Day Deadline has Passed - Now What?

Under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, the “60-day clock” refers to the period after U.S. forces are introduced into hostilities, without prior authorization, during which the president must either obtain congressional authorization or end military involvement.

The War Powers Resolution’s 60-day clock has officially expired, triggering a legal requirement for the administration to either seek congressional authorization for continued military engagement, or certify that additional time (up to 30 days) is needed to safely withdraw U.S. forces. So far, the administration has done neither.

The absence of either action underscores what critics have argued from the start, that this conflict has been unlawful since day one. As correctly outlined in a recent piece in Just Security, President Trump’s Iran war was already “doubly illegal” as a direct violation of both the U.S. Constitution and the UN Charter. And now, with the 60 day deadline having passed, the war is “triply illegal.”

Right now, the war’s growing illegality does not appear to be shifting lawmakers’ stances in a major way. This provides the President a de facto pass to continue prosecuting hostilities against Iran. If diplomacy fails and military escalation spikes, however, dynamics could shift once again.

Republicans Begin Drafting War Authorization

At the same time, a group of Senate Republicans continue work on a draft Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) related to Iran, which is a measure passed by Congress and signed by the President that would provide specific, statutory authorization to engage in military hostilities.

Efforts to draft a new war authorization carry significant risks, as they could effectively provide permission for continuing a conflict that has already proven destabilizing, while further entrenching a broader precedent of expanded executive war authority.

While the effort poses some risk, Republican Senate Majority Leader John Thune has suggested an authorization would not be necessary “at this point.” This suggests there would be trepidation among some members of his caucus of tying themselves closer to a war that is unpopular and backfiring.

While Murkowski and some of her colleagues argue that military action should be formally authorized, that position must be weighed against the realities and consequences of the ongoing war. After more than 60 days, the question is not whether the administration should be given the opportunity to obtain a legal authorization for the war, but how this already illegal war should be brought to an end.

An alternative for Senate Republicans to pursue is rallying to advance war powers resolutions aimed at ending the unauthorized war, full stop. With Sen. Susan Collins’ break last week with the party, momentum is beginning to build in favor of renewed war powers efforts.

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth Faces Congress

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth faced tough questioning on Capitol Hill last week, with lawmakers pressing him on the administration’s strategy, legal justifications, and endgame in Iran.

In his first appearance before Congress since the war began, Hegseth was met with sharp skepticism from Democrats over the war being waged without congressional authorization and with mounting costs, which Pentagon officials said had reached roughly $25 billion (the actual costs are likely at least double that total). Lawmakers also raised concerns about the lack of a clear strategy, the strain on U.S. military resources, and civilian harm, including scrutiny of the use of AI in targeting decisions, an approach tied to the bombing of the school in Minab early on in the war.

Hegseth defended the Trump administration’s approach, bombastically at times, asserting that the campaign was both effective and necessary, even as members of Congress challenged what they described as an overly optimistic portrayal of the war and its outcomes.

When pressed on the expiration of the 60-day deadline under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, Hegseth argued that the ongoing ceasefire effectively “pauses” the clock. That claim is not supported by the statute, a point emphasized during questioning by Sen. Tim Kaine. This kind of interpretation is further called into question given the ongoing U.S. naval blockade in the Strait of Hormuz, which is widely regarded as an act of war.

The hearing underscored the continued and growing disconnect between the administration’s framing of the war and congressional concerns about its costs, legality, and trajectory, further fueling calls for greater oversight and renewed efforts to reassert Congress’s role in decisions of war and peace.

Looking Ahead — More War Powers Votes Incoming

Momentum is building for additional war powers votes in both chambers. In the House, at least half a dozen resolutions have already been filed and are expected to come up for a vote once they ripen, including measures introduced by Reps. Gregory Meeks (D-NY), Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), Maxine Dexter (D-OR), Jared Huffman (D-CA), John Garamendi (D-CA), and Ro Khanna (D-CA).

While earlier war powers votes in the House were decided by narrow margins, making passage plausible, the outcome will ultimately hinge on a small group of swing votes, which include Reps. Nancy Mace (R-SC), Warren Davidson (R-OH), Lauren Boebert (R-CO), and Jared Golden (D-ME).

The positions of these swing votes are likely to be shaped by both attendance dynamics and the evolving situation on the ground. If the current ceasefire holds, even amid reports of continued hostilities and isolated acts of war, support for war powers may be more limited. However, if hostilities fully resume and the ceasefire formally collapses, backing for the resolutions is expected to grow, particularly in the context of mounting legal pressure following the expiration of the 60-day war powers deadline.

As a result, while passage remains very much in play, the trajectory of events in the coming weeks will be decisive in determining whether these resolutions ultimately succeed.

Bicameral Push for Temporary Protected Status for Iranians

In a separate but related development, a recent letter sent by Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-AZ) and Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) on April 23 calls on the Trump administration to designate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) or Deferred Enforced Departure (DED) for Iranian nationals currently in the United States. In the months leading up to the war, the Trump administration chartered three deportation flights to Iran, which have included religious and ethnic minorities, political dissidents, and individuals who faced credible fears of persecution upon return to Iran. Since the start of the war the administration has not proceeded with deporting any more planeloads of Iranians, but the risk nonetheless remains and may resurface if the war formally concludes.

In the letter, the Members emphasize the dangers facing Iranian civilians and argue that deporting individuals back to an unstable and potentially dangerous environment would be inhumane.

This effort reflects growing concern about the humanitarian consequences of the war, not just abroad, but for Iranian communities here in the U.S.

• House War Powers Vote Breakdown

• Senate War Powers Vote Breakdown

• Senate Joint Resolutions of Disapproval Vote Breakdown

• Looking Ahead: Next Senate War Powers Vote

Last week was consequential on the Hill for Iran policy – a one-vote miss on war powers in the House, continued pressure campaigns in the Senate, and the strongest showing yet for efforts to restrict arms sales to Israel.

Iran War Powers Resolution in the House

This latest war powers resolution in the House, H.Con.Res. 40, introduced by Reps. Gregory Meeks (D-NY), Adam Smith (D-WA) and Jim Himes (D-CT) received a vote on April 16, 2026, and failed narrowly by a vote of 213 - 214.

Every single House Democrat voted in favor of the resolution with the exception of Rep. Jared Golden (D-ME). Had Rep. Golden voted in favor, the measure would have passed, sending a clear signal to the Trump administration that congressional and public opposition to the war is substantial. It remains unclear whether Golden’s vote was purely substantive or part of a broader, quieter calculation among more hawkish, Israel-aligned Democrats to avoid putting the measure over the top while still allowing the caucus to show overwhelming support. Either way, his vote was decisive.

At the same time, the rest of the Democratic caucus held, including members who haven’t always been reliable yes votes on these issues. Notably, Rep. Juan Vargas (D-CA), Henry Cuellar (D-TX), and Greg Landsman (D-OH), who had voted against the last war powers vote, flipped to support the resolution this week, a signal that even some more moderate or traditionally pro-Israel Democrats are moving, at least on war powers and congressional authority.

On the Republican side, the latest vote reflected a more uneven and ultimately inconclusive shift. Rep. Warren Davidson (R-OH), who had notably come out in support of the last war powers vote after expressing concern for the administration’s aims with the war, voted present for this latest vote. A “present” vote signifies that a Member is physically present in the chamber, but is choosing not to vote.

Additionally, Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC), one of Congress’ most notorious MAGA Members, has indicated in recent weeks her growing opposition to Trump’s war on Iran, citing concerns for the “clear gap between what’s being said publicly and what we were told behind closed doors.” Last month, she had even told reporters she would “most likely” vote for the House Democrats’ next war powers resolution. However, during last week’s vote in the House, Rep. Mace was notably absent from the chamber. It was reported that Rep. Mace’s father passed away last week on April 14, which many presume to be the reason why she was not present for the vote; a vote which she likely would have supported based on her recent statements.

These developments among some key House Republicans point to softening unease, but not yet the kind of active defections needed to shift the outcome.

Iran War Powers Resolution in the Senate

The Senate is telling a different story than the House – movement, but no breakthrough yet.

This latest war powers resolution in the Senate, S.J.Res. 123, introduced by Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) received a vote on April 15, 2026, and was rejected in a 47–53 vote. The vote once again failed largely on party lines, with the exceptions of Republican Senator Rand Paul (D-KY) in favor of the resolution and Democrat Senator John Fetterman (D-PA) voting against it. This was the fourth official war powers vote in the Senate since the onset of the war.

Democrats are consistently forcing votes, but Republicans, almost entirely, are holding the line. Senate Democrats have indicated that they intend to continue forcing votes on war powers each week until one can eventually pass. This strategy was reflected by the filing of six new war powers resolutions this week by Senators Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Mark Kelly (D-AZ), Raphael Warnock (D-GA), and Andy Kim (D-NJ). The next batch of resolutions require 10 calendar days to ripen before being forced to the floor for votes.

With new resolutions being filed week after week, Democrats are effectively daring Republicans to keep voting against congressional authority as the 60-day War Powers clock runs down on April 29 — a key inflection point. Under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, the President may use military force in emergency situations without Congressional authorization but must either secure that authorization or terminate unauthorized hostilities within 60 days. While most experts agree Operation Epic Fury doesn’t meet the emergency standard to bypass Congress, this has been a central argument for lawmakers opposed to the War Powers Resolution — that the President has a 60 day window.

As that 60-day window closes, it is expected to become an increasingly consequential marker in the debate over the legality and continuation of U.S. involvement in Iran. Looking ahead, Republican lawmakers who argue the President can act for 60 days will either need to come up with a new legal argument for sidelining Congress, vote to end unauthorized military action, or vote to authorize the war. With war power votes failing on such narrow margins, a shift from at least four Republicans would enable future war powers resolutions to pass. As reported in The Hill last week, Senate Republicans are increasingly feeling the pressure of the 60-day mark and whether or not they can realistically, and legally, continue to support Trump’s war without formal Congressional approval.

Senate Effort to Block Arms Transfers to Israel

Where the war powers votes in the Senate remain stuck, Senator Bernie Sanders’ (I-VT) Joint Resolutions of Disapproval (JRD) saw their strongest Democratic support yet, signaling a growing willingness within the caucus to challenge arms sales, even if that shift hasn’t yet translated into passage.

A joint resolution of disapproval is a legislative tool used by Congress to overturn or block specific executive actions, including foreign arms sales. Senator Sanders has historically utilized this tool to challenge and force public votes on military aid to Israel, effectively putting Senators on the record for where they stand regarding the unconditional flow of arms to a state known for its gross human rights violations.

These resolutions, S.J.Res. 32 and S.J.Res. 138, led by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), sought to block approximately $446.8 million in U.S. arms sales to Israel, including bulldozers used in home demolitions and 1,000-pound bombs. The measures represented an effort by Senators to use Congress’s formal disapproval authority to prevent the transfer of offensive weapons amid ongoing war and destruction in Gaza, Lebanon, and Iran.

Both resolutions failed in the Senate on April 15, 2026, with votes of 40–59 and 36–63.

Despite the defeat, the votes underscored a substantial bloc of Democratic senators now willing to formally oppose specific arms transfers, even as the resolutions continue to fall short of passage in the face of unified Republican opposition.

Looking Ahead - Expected Senate Vote this Week on Next War Powers Resolution

The Senate is expected to vote on S.J.Res. 114 this week, the latest Iran War Powers Resolution introduced by Senator Tammy Baldwin (D-WI). As with the previous votes, the measure will serve as a key test of whether enough senators, particularly Republicans, are willing to break with the President and his very unpopular war.

Additionally, Congress is still expecting the Pentagon to present a formal supplemental budget request – estimated at over $200 billion. Notably, as the ceasefire deadline nears, President Trump has already threatened the resumption of bombing should the U.S. and Iran fail to reach an agreement. And after having used at least 45% of its stockpile of Precision Strike Missiles in the war thus far, the administration is likely to pursue billions of additional funding from Congress.

Key Takeaways

In the House, the margin for passing Iran War Powers to end the conflict has now narrowed to a single vote, while in the Senate war powers remain stuck but under continued procedural and political pressure. At the same time, Democratic support for challenging arms sales is slowly but steadily increasing, even as final passage remains out of reach.

As the 60-day War Powers deadline approaches, each vote is becoming more consequential, and the political pressure on both chambers is only set to increase. The fate of ceasefire negotiations with Iran will have a major impact on whether Congress moves from debating Trump's Iran moves to taking major steps toward constraining them.

We will continue tracking key developments in The NIAC Capitol Insider in the weeks ahead.