House Democrats Voted to End Iran War—After Giving Up Their Best Leverage to Actually Stop It
House Democrats voted for the second time to end Trump’s war with Iran just a day after declining to use rare legislative leverage that could have forced Trump’s hand.
House Democrats voted Thursday to direct President Donald Trump to end his illegal war against Iran. Just a day earlier, they gave up one of their best chances to actually force his hand.
Six Democrats provided the decisive votes Wednesday to pass the annual National Defense Authorization Act, rescuing the bill after seven Republicans defected, leaving GOP leaders unable to pass it with Republican votes alone. The bill passed 216–212.
Democratic leaders rallied their caucus behind the Iran war powers resolution for the second time, declaring the war unauthorized and demanding that Trump end it. Last month, Congress made history by passing H.Con.Res.86, a bipartisan war powers resolution directing Trump to remove U.S. forces from hostilities against Iran. It was the first time in the law’s 53-year history that both chambers successfully invoked the War Powers Act’s Section 5(c) mechanism for terminating unauthorized hostilities. On Thursday, the House passed another Iran war powers resolution, sponsored by Democratic Rep. Pramila Jayapal, 214–208, with four Republicans joining Democrats.
House Democrats have repeatedly voted to end the war while refusing to use the leverage that could force a confrontation with the White House. As a result, their opposition has remained largely symbolic. When Republicans needed Democratic votes to pass must-pass defense legislation, Democrats had a rare opportunity to impose real political costs on an administration that has already shown it will ignore congressional war powers directives. They chose not to use it.
War powers experts argue lawmakers possess considerably stronger tools to constrain the administration, but using them would require Congress to move from signaling its opposition to actively withholding the money and legislative cooperation necessary to continue the war. The NDAA is one of the minority party’s few genuinely powerful pressure points because, while not legally required to pass each year, it’s treated as must-pass legislation. Democrats could have conditioned the votes Republicans needed on restrictions on the war or, at minimum, forced GOP leadership to choose between negotiating over Iran and allowing the defense bill to fail.
The $1.15 trillion package authorizes an enormous share of U.S. defense and national security spending, from Pentagon programs and nuclear weapons to intelligence activities and military aid. Six Democrats – Reps. Henry Cuellar, Don Davis, Jared Golden, Vicente Gonzalez, Adam Gray, and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez – crossed the aisle to authorize $1.15 trillion for the U.S. war machine.
Democratic leaders formally recommended a “no” vote on the NDAA. But there is a meaningful difference between listing an official position and enforcing it as a political red line. Leadership could have publicly demanded that Democrats hold the line, framed support for the NDAA as enabling Trump’s continued war in Iran, or privately and publicly made clear that members who rescued the bill would face political consequences. There is no indication that Jeffries did so.
Without that pressure, leadership’s nominal opposition effectively left room for a handful of conservative Democrats to give Republicans the votes they needed while the rest of the caucus retained the political benefits of opposing the bill. Had Jeffries publicly treated the vote as a red line and made clear that members who rescued the bill would be held accountable, the six Democrats would have faced a materially different political calculation.
Democratic leaders have readily used their power to discipline members who challenge the bipartisan consensus around Israel. In 2019, then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the entire House Democratic leadership publicly demanded that Rep. Ilhan Omar apologize over comments about Israel and its supporters; she did so within hours.
Democratic leaders oppose Trump’s unilateral conduct, not the imperial strategy the war advances. They insist on reasserting Congress’s constitutional role while continuing to support the aims of Trump’s war: preserving Israeli and U.S. dominance in the Middle East, weakening Iran, and advancing Washington’s broader confrontation with China.
Jeffries’ office did not respond by publication time when asked what strategy House Democrats have – absent using the NDAA or other must-pass legislation as leverage – that could exert comparable pressure on Trump to end the war. Rep. Adam Smith, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, did not respond to questions about what concrete leverage Democrats intend to use next either. Smith’s office did not answer whether he or Democratic leadership pressured any of the six Democrats who voted to pass the NDAA.
A broad coalition of anti-war, civil liberties, and faith groups is also ramping up pressure on Congress to escalate beyond resolutions directing Trump to end a war he has already refused to stop.
In a letter sent to lawmakers Thursday, more than 30 organizations called on Congress to use the legal and political tools at its disposal to bring an urgent end to the Iran war. The groups outlined four steps lawmakers should take in response to Trump’s refusal to comply: defend the previously passed war powers resolution as legally binding; maintain that the War Powers Act’s 60-day deadline required the withdrawal of U.S. forces from hostilities beginning May 1; pursue litigation to enforce Congress’s directive; and use Congress’s appropriations power to cut off funding for the war.
The groups argue that funding restrictions would provide “an additional enforcement tool” alongside the war powers resolution Trump has already refused to obey. The letter was signed by organizations including the Brennan Center for Justice, Indivisible, MoveOn, the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, and National Iranian American Council Action.
Following the war powers vote on Thursday, Rep. Greg Meeks, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, told reporters that lawmakers could now turn to the courts. “We can now go to the courts and sue the administration for not following the will of Congress,” he said.
Litigation is unlikely to move quickly enough to end the war in the near term, and any case could face significant procedural hurdles. But a successful challenge could establish an important precedent that future Congresses – including Democratic majorities confronting a Democratic president – would be expected to follow.
“Congress has already directed the removal of U.S. armed forces under the War Powers Act, and the President must comply,” the groups wrote. “Our democracy, the American people, and particularly U.S. servicemembers deserve a Congress that will fight for the rule of law and an end to the unauthorized Iran War.”
Sen. Chris Van Hollen made the point even more plainly on the Senate floor Thursday. The Iran war powers resolution, the Maryland Democrat said, is “not a suggestion – it is legally binding.”