Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Senators Express Support, Criticism of Future Military Action in Iran

News

Senators Express Support, Criticism of Future Military Action in Iran

Sen. Chuck Schumer criticized the Iran War on Tuesday. Republicans and Democrats are mostly split along party lines in support and criticism of the war.

(Marissa Fernandez/MNS)

WASHINGTON — Senators seemed split along party lines over future military action in the Middle East after a classified intelligence briefing on Tuesday afternoon. Democrats called for increased clarity on the objectives and justifications for attacks, while Republicans supported the Trump administration’s current plan.

The conflicting reactions came as both the House and the Senate are scheduled to vote on a war powers resolution on Wednesday and Thursday, respectively. If passed, the resolution would limit further military actions in Iran without congressional approval.


Most Republicans criticized the measure and said that Congress should not take authority away from the president.

“We don’t need 535 commanders-in-chief,” Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., told reporters in the Capitol on Tuesday. “The commander in chief is the president of the United States, and he has a duty in Article Two to be able to protect American interests, and he is initiating that and doing that with great authority and great effect.”

Democrats criticized the president for striking without congressional approval.

The Constitution grants Congress the sole power to declare war, but dictates that the president is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces.

“Nobody gets to hide and give the President an easy pass or an end run around the Constitution,” Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., said regarding the war powers resolution. “Everybody's got to declare whether they're for this war or against it.”

President Donald Trump launched strikes on Iran early Saturday morning. As of Wednesday morning, over 1000 people, including six U.S. service members, have been killed in the conflict, reported CBS News. Trump and members of his administration, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, offered conflicting justifications for the war and different estimates of how long it might last.

Democrats expressed worry over the lack of clarity from the Trump administration.

“They have shifting goals, different goals all the time, different answers every day,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., told reporters Tuesday. “And I'm truly worried about the mission. There's no set plan being here day after day. ‘We're going to do this, this, this and this,’ and these are the reasons why you end up with an endless war.”

Schumer added that the answers given during Tuesday’s intelligence briefing were "unsatisfying."

Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., echoed Schumer’s concerns about the unclear objectives.

“I am more fearful than ever after that briefing that we may be putting boots on the ground and that troops in the United States may be necessary to accomplish objectives that the administration seems to have,” said Blumenthal. “But I also am no more clear on what priorities are going to be of the administration going forward, whether it is destroying the nuclear capacity of the missiles or regime change or stopping terrorist activities.”

Blumenthal added that the “administration owes it” to the American people to release information about the Iran war.

Republicans came out of Tuesday’s briefing praising the administration and its objectives.

“They want to make sure that the ability for them to strike us anywhere at any time is gone,” said Mullin. “No way they'll be able to make a nuclear weapon or enrich uranium again. To take out their navy so they can't disrupt commerce in the shipping lanes, and to take out their ability to restock and rebuild their missiles and drones. That's the objective here.”

Mullin added that the U.S is “going to eliminate the threat that’s been threatening us for 47 years,” which “no other president was willing to stand up against Iran and eliminate it like President Trump.”

Others, like Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., expressed similar confidence in the U.S. military's power.

“Who’s going to win a war between the Iranian regime and the United States? We are. We’re going to win this conflict,” Graham said.

Marissa Fernandez covers politics for Medill on the Hill.


Read More

“We Will Not Let This Destroy Our Sacred Sites”: Indigenous Leaders Fight Trump Administration’s Border Wall

Lorraine Marquez Eiler, a Hia-C’ed O’odham elder, listens as Tohono O'odham Chairman Verlon Jose speaks during a news conference at the Quitobaquito Springs site on Monday, Aug. 24, 2026.

Stephanie Casanova

“We Will Not Let This Destroy Our Sacred Sites”: Indigenous Leaders Fight Trump Administration’s Border Wall

Standing near the pond at Quitobaquito Springs, Lorraine Marquez Eiler, a Hia-Ced O’odham elder, shared how her ancestors held ceremonies at the sacred site — a desert oasis in a national park that the federal government is set to bulldoze for a new border wall.

She pulled out a photo of her great-great grandparents and her great-grandparents, who would walk about 50 miles through the Sonoran Desert to the springs. The O’odham call the water flow A’al Vaipia. She showed the image of her ancestors to a group that included Indigenous leaders and a U.S. congressional representative — all there on Monday to condemn the border wall construction.

Keep ReadingShow less
 Unrecognizable doctor prescribing pharmacy to patient.

After a 30-year decline, U.S. abortions are rising again. Texas data suggests bans may shift where abortions happen — not whether they do.

Natalia Gdovskaia/Getty Images

Pro-Life and Pro-Choice: Bridging the Gap

Introduction

We have spent decades arguing about abortion policy on ideological grounds. I think we now have an opportunity to step back, look at what actually happened, and ask a more fundamental question: What policies actually reduce the number of abortions?

I believe that is a question on which pro-life and pro-choice people should be able to agree. Whatever our differences about abortion itself, surely, we can agree that fewer abortions would be a good outcome.

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. Capitol.

A rundown of the House bills most likely to become law this week — from seafood fraud enforcement to a sanctions bill critics call a tariff bill.

Photo by Andy Feliciotti on Unsplash

Both Chambers in Session this Week

Last Minute Rush

We’re not going to describe every bill the House aims to take action on this week because there’s lots. Instead, we’re going to focus on the ones that will become law if passed by the House and pull a few notable bills at the beginning of the legislative process. We’ll use the same level of discretion at the end of this week when we review what actually happened between today, Monday Sept. 14 and Friday, Sept. 18.

Probable New Laws

In addition to the bills listed below are also a couple of park renamings. All of these will, if passed, then go to the President for signing and once that’s done, become law.

Keep ReadingShow less
The White House, Washington, DC
A large white building with a fountain in front of it

We Can and Should Reform the President’s Pardon Power

On August 21, Congressman Jamie Raskin, the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, released a report entitled “Pardons, Inc.: How Trump and His Clemency-for-Cash Racket Let White-Collar Criminals and International Drug Dealers Walk Free and Dodge Billions in Restitution Owed to Their Victims.” As the title suggests, the report documents the president’s startling abuse of his constitutional power to grant pardons and reprieves.

If that problem were limited to Trump, we might look to the ballot box to remedy it. But it is not.

Keep ReadingShow less