Skip to main content

House again rebukes Trump over Iran, while similar effort stalls in Senate

▶ Watch Video: House passes resolution to limit Trump’s war powers after 4 Republicans join Democrats on vote

Washington — The House on Thursday voted to direct President Trump to end the war with Iran, with four Republicans joining Democrats to rebuke the president over his handling of the conflict as fighting ramps up. 

Hours later, a similar effort failed to advance in the Senate, where some Republicans who have been critical of the war effort again sided with the administration to prevent a Democratic resolution from advancing.

In the House, the chamber voted 214 to 208 to adopt a resolution introduced by Democratic Rep. Pramila Jayapal of Washington. It would direct the president “to remove the use of United States Armed Forces from hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran or any part of its government or military, including potential ground forces in a combat role or used for occupation,” without express authorization from Congress.

Republican Reps. Tom Barrett of Michigan, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Warren Davidson of Ohio and Thomas Massie of Kentucky split from their party to vote in favor of the resolution. 

The votes in Congress follow the deaths of several U.S. service members who were killed in Iranian attacks in the region and as the cost of the war escalates with no off-ramp in sight. Mr. Trump has dismissed GOP concerns about the potential political ramifications that could play out in the midterm elections, though most Republicans continue to back the war despite the risks. 

“It is absolutely crucial that we assert our Article I Constitutional powers, and — especially following the most recent hostilities in Iran — continue to show Congressional disapproval for this war,” Jayapal and Rep. Jason Crow of Colorado wrote in a letter to their Democratic colleagues ahead of the vote. 

Mr. Trump notified Congress on July 10 that “military action” against Iran had formally restarted after he declared a monthlong ceasefire “over.” 

Under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, the president must notify Congress within 48 hours of the start of military hostilities. Shortly after the U.S.-Iran war began in late February, the White House sent a notification to Congress, but the Trump administration’s position was that hostilities had “terminated” after the two sides signed a ceasefire in early April. 

The administration has argued that the termination of hostilities — though attacks continued on both sides — restarted the statutory 60-day clock, while also asserting that the provision of the law is unconstitutional. The War Powers Resolution limits military hostilities to 60 days unless Congress votes to authorize military force, with an extra 30-day grace period if the president determines more time is necessary to safely withdraw U.S. forces. 

Both the House and Senate passed a resolution last month seeking to limit Mr. Trump’s ability to carry out further military action against Iran without congressional authorization. Democrats have said they’re considering their legal options to force Mr. Trump to comply. They also plan to use any leverage they have over the appropriations process to deny additional funding for the conflict. 

The administration requested $67 billion in supplemental funding to help cover the cost of the conflict and replenish crucial military supplies. It’s also seeking $1.5 trillion to fund the Pentagon in the next fiscal year. 

On Wednesday, House Republicans advanced their plan to provide up to $73 billion in funding for the Iran war and up to $12 billion in aid to farmers to help offset the economic damages of the conflict. Two Republicans and one independent who caucuses with Republicans voted in opposition. The proposal, which is just the first step in the party-line reconciliation process that allows Republicans to overcome Democratic opposition, faces major obstacles in the Senate. 

“This administration has never sought an authorization for use of military force from Congress, and most Republicans in this chamber continue to enable it,” Rep. Gregory Meeks of New York, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said Wednesday. 

South Carolina to hold first 2028 Democratic presidential primary

▶ Watch Video: Democrats expected to approve South Carolina as first primary in 2028, but other states pushing back Democrats on Saturday approved a new presidential nominating calendar for 2028, cementing South Carolina's place as the first official Democratic primary state, as the party looks to elevate states that better reflect its diverse coalition of voters.The vote came during the Democratic National Committee's summer meeting in Austin, where members signed off on a schedule that begins with South Carolina on Jan. 22, followed by Nevada on Feb. 1. New Hampshire, New Mexico, Michigan and Virginia round out the early-state lineup throughout February, all voting before Super Tuesday.The new calendar goes into effect amid a tug-of-war within the progressive and establishment wings of the party. It also continues a shift away from a tradition that for half a century gave states that are predominantly composed of White voters — Iowa and New Hampshire — outsized influence at the start of the nominating process. Strategists say the new calendar gives greater influence to Black and Latino voters, who make up key parts of the Democratic coalition. "If you're not strong with Latino voters or if you're not strong with Black voters, you know you can only get so far in this calendar," CBS News contributor and Democratic strategist Chuck Rocha said, adding that the schedule shows Black voters "the respect that they're due."Not everyone in the party is on board. Democratic leaders in Iowa and New Hampshire — previously the first and second states to hold primary contests, respectively — excoriated the new map as soon as the DNC's Rules and Bylaws Committee recommended it, arguing that it diminishes the role of states that have long taken on the responsibility of shaping the presidential nomination battlefield. "New Hampshire's First in the Nation primary is a tested proving ground in a closely contested swing state that forges better candidates and better presidents — and despite what DNC insiders say, that hasn't changed," New Hampshire's U.S. congressional delegation said in a statement. "As a state with highly engaged voters, we put candidates through their paces and thoroughly vet them. And our small size means that actually meeting and talking to voters takes precedence over super PACs or mega-donor-fueled campaigns."Momentum for South Carolina's ascension in the calendar traces back to 2020, when a victory there shifted momentum in the presidential primary that year to Joe Biden after he performed poorly in Iowa, New Hampshire and, to a lesser extent, Nevada. Under pressure from Biden and his allies, the DNC moved South Carolina's primary to first for the 2024 calendar. That cycle, New Hampshire defied the DNC's revised schedule and held its primary before South Carolina, citing a state law that mandates it hold the first primary. In response, the party stripped the contest of its sanctioned status. DNC Chair Ken Martin has signaled that if New Hampshire jumps ahead again in 2028, punishment will be more severe. "This is a calendar this party is actually going to protect," Martin told reporters after the DNC's Rules and Bylaws Committee met last month to propose a new schedule. The new calendar could impact the ideological battle within the Democratic Party between establishment moderates and more progressive candidates, including far-left democratic socialists. With no obvious 2028 front-runner, the newly approved schedule gives South Carolina, Nevada and the other four early states disproportionate influence over which faction can build early momentum in the 2028 presidential primaries. Among the states granted early slots, only Nevada and New Mexico offer clear advantages to progressives. Michigan has shown openness this cycle to progressives, with the primary victory of Abdul El-Sayed in the Senate race, but historically has elected more moderate candidates. New Hampshire voters have over time shown an openness to outsiders, but they typically have a more independent streak rather than a steep ideological lean. Progressives face an uphill battle in South Carolina, which has fewer of the White voters with college degrees who tend to support further-left candidates, and Virginia, which has long favored more moderate candidates. The decision to elevate states with large Black and Hispanic populations also comes as Democrats fight to stop the GOP from gaining ground with those two groups in general elections. President Trump won 48% of the Hispanic vote in 2024, up 12 points from four years earlier, and he won 15% of Black voters, almost double his share in 2020, according to the Pew Research Center. His share of non-Hispanic White voters remained stable, at 55%.
Read Next Story