Congress must reassert its authority at this dangerous moment
As a fragile ceasefire holds between the United States and Iran, House Democrats are preparing to reassert a constitutional claim as old as the republic itself — that the power to make war belongs to Congress, not the executive alone. Moderate Democrats who once stood with Republicans to block such a measure are now shifting, unsettled by presidential rhetoric threatening to destroy Iranian civilian infrastructure. The effort faces formidable arithmetic in the Senate and a presidential veto waiting beyond that, yet the push reflects something deeper than legislative strategy: a reckoning over who holds the authority to send a nation into conflict.
- Trump's threats to destroy Iran's electrical grid and critical infrastructure have rattled moderate Democrats who previously helped Republicans defeat a war powers resolution.
- Rep. Greg Landsman publicly called the president's rhetoric 'unhinged,' signaling a fracture in the bipartisan coalition that has sustained Trump's Iran policy.
- Democratic leaders in both chambers are coordinating a renewed push to force a binding war powers vote the moment Congress returns from Easter recess.
- Nearly 80 Democrats have gone further still, calling on the Cabinet to invoke the 25th Amendment — framing Trump's infrastructure threats as potential war crimes.
- Despite the mounting pressure, the resolution faces near-impossible odds: 60 Senate votes are required, Trump holds veto power, and two-thirds support in both chambers would be needed to override him.
House Democrats are preparing to force a war powers vote when Congress returns from Easter recess, seeking to curtail President Trump's authority to wage war against Iran. The renewed effort comes as moderate Democrats who previously helped Republicans defeat a similar measure are reconsidering their positions — rattled by Trump's threats to destroy Iran's electrical grid and other civilian infrastructure if Tehran refuses to negotiate.
Rep. Greg Landsman of Ohio, who voted against last month's resolution alongside fellow moderate Henry Cuellar of Texas, publicly broke with that stance, calling Trump's language 'unhinged.' Their earlier votes had been decisive: combined with four other Democrats, they gave Republicans the margin needed to kill the measure. Now, facing difficult reelection campaigns, both appear to be shifting — a sign of potential cracks in the coalition sustaining Trump's Iran policy.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries called the current two-week ceasefire insufficient, demanding a permanent end to what he termed Trump's 'reckless war of choice.' Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer reinforced the message, arguing that no president should take the country to war unilaterally. Democratic leadership is coordinating across both chambers even as U.S.-Iran negotiations continue under the ceasefire.
The obstacles remain steep. Senate passage requires 60 votes — a threshold similar resolutions have never cleared — and Trump's veto power means two-thirds support in both chambers would be needed to make any resolution binding. Those numbers are, by most counts, mathematically out of reach. Still, the effort carries symbolic and constitutional weight: Democrats want Congress on record opposing what they call an unconstitutional war, and they want to constrain any further escalation before it begins.
The opposition has grown more dramatic beyond the war powers debate itself. Nearly 80 Democrats have called on Trump's Cabinet to invoke the 25th Amendment and remove him from office, arguing his threats against Iranian civilian infrastructure would constitute war crimes. Cabinet members have shown no sign of acting on the demand — but the call itself reflects how far Democratic alarm has traveled since the conflict began.
House Democrats are preparing to force another vote on war powers when Congress returns from its Easter break, seeking to constrain President Trump's authority to wage war against Iran. The push comes as some moderate Democrats who previously sided with Republicans to block a similar measure are now reversing course, citing Trump's recent threats to destroy Iran's electrical grid and other critical infrastructure if Tehran refuses to negotiate.
Rep. Greg Landsman of Ohio announced his shift in a post on social media, calling Trump's rhetoric "unhinged" and demanding he end the inflammatory language. Landsman and fellow moderate Democrat Henry Cuellar of Texas had both voted against a war powers resolution last month, helping Republicans defeat the measure. That vote saw 215 Republicans and five Democrats—Landsman, Cuellar, Jared Golden of Maine, and Juan Vargas of California—combine to kill the resolution that would have immediately terminated military operations in Iran. Speaker Mike Johnson managed to pass the measure only because two Republicans, Warren Davidson of Ohio and Thomas Massie of Kentucky, voted with Democrats. Without that Democratic support, Johnson would have lost the vote entirely.
Now, facing difficult reelection campaigns this fall, Landsman and Cuellar appear to be recalibrating their positions. The shift signals potential cracks in the Republican-Democratic coalition that has sustained Trump's Iran policy so far. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries told CNN that a two-week ceasefire currently in place between the United States and Iran is inadequate. "We need a permanent end to Donald Trump's reckless war of choice," Jeffries said, calling for the House to reconvene immediately to pass a binding war powers resolution.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer echoed the sentiment during a press conference in New York, arguing that no president should unilaterally take the country to war. "Congress must reassert its authority, especially at this dangerous moment," he said. The Democratic leadership is coordinating across both chambers to push the issue, even as negotiations between Washington and Tehran continue and a temporary ceasefire holds.
The odds remain heavily stacked against the Democrats. Even if the House passes a war powers resolution, the Senate would need 60 votes to advance it—a threshold similar measures have repeatedly failed to clear. Trump retains veto power regardless, meaning the resolution would need two-thirds support in both chambers to become law without his signature. Those numbers appear mathematically impossible given current party alignments. Yet the Democratic push reflects a broader effort to put Congress on record opposing what they characterize as an unconstitutional war, and to constrain Trump's ability to launch further military strikes without legislative approval.
The intensity of Democratic opposition has escalated beyond war powers votes. Nearly 80 Democrats in the House and Senate have called on Trump's Cabinet to invoke the 25th Amendment and remove him from office, citing his threats to target Iranian civilian infrastructure. Such strikes, Democrats argue, would constitute war crimes under international law. The 25th Amendment effort signals the depth of concern among some Democrats about Trump's willingness to expand the conflict, though Cabinet members have shown no indication of pursuing removal.
Notable Quotes
Trump is unhinged and this insane rhetoric is undermining and creating panic. We need to end it.— Rep. Greg Landsman (D-OH), explaining his shift on war powers
We need a permanent end to Donald Trump's reckless war of choice, which is why House Democrats have demanded that Speaker Mike Johnson immediately reconvene the House.— House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, on CNN
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why would Democrats push a vote they know will fail?
Because votes create a record. They're forcing Republicans and moderate Democrats to go on record either supporting or opposing Trump's war authority. That matters in an election year.
But Landsman and Cuellar already voted against the last resolution. What changed?
Trump's rhetoric escalated. Threatening to destroy a country's electrical grid—that's different from the initial conflict. It spooked moderates facing tough races. They need to show their constituents they'll push back on something they see as reckless.
If it can't pass the Senate and Trump can veto it anyway, is this just theater?
It's not nothing. It establishes that Congress opposes the war. It creates political cover for members who want to say they tried. And it keeps the issue alive when the administration might prefer it fade away.
Why are some Democrats calling for the 25th Amendment?
They believe threatening to destroy civilian infrastructure crosses a line into criminality. They see it as evidence of unfitness, not just policy disagreement. It's a more extreme move, but it reflects genuine alarm among the caucus.
Could Landsman and Cuellar's shift actually change the math?
Not on its own. But if more moderates follow them, and if one or two more Republicans break ranks like Davidson and Massie did, the dynamics shift. Right now it's just two votes, but it shows the coalition isn't as solid as it looks.