Sen. Lisa Murkowski is pressing Senate Republican leadership to schedule a vote on a resolution authorizing military force against Iran, and the longer GOP leaders stall, the more likely a growing bloc of Republican dissenters hands Democrats a symbolic win on the war powers question.
The Alaska Republican told colleagues on the Senate floor last week that she wants Congress to formally vote on the conflict, The Hill reported Monday. Her push comes after the 60-day window under the 1973 War Powers Act expired on May 1, meaning U.S. military operations against Iran now continue without explicit congressional authorization.
Senate Republican Leader John Thune, however, does not appear eager to put the question on the floor. As of Monday, a senior GOP aide confirmed that Thune had not scheduled a vote on Murkowski's authorization measure. The math is straightforward: if the Senate does not vote on Murkowski's authorization, a growing number of Republicans may instead vote for a Democratic-sponsored resolution ordering President Trump to withdraw U.S. troops, an outcome that would amount to a bipartisan rebuke of the administration's war footing.
President Trump notified Congress of the strikes against Iran on March 2, two days after the war began on February 28. Under the War Powers Act, the president may deploy U.S. forces without congressional authorization for up to 60 days. That window closed on May 1.
Murkowski's proposed resolution would formally authorize the use of military force, bringing the naval blockade against Iranian ports and future strikes into compliance with the law. She described it as an effort to "establish a framework" requiring the administration to "come to Congress with clearly defined political and military objectives."
"It would require metrics for success, notice of any changes in objectives and exit criteria. It would ultimately ensure that Congress is engaged."
That language, metrics, exit criteria, congressional engagement, is the vocabulary of institutional accountability, not antiwar protest. Murkowski is not arguing against the conflict. She is arguing that the Constitution requires Congress to own it.
The problem is procedural. Because Murkowski did not introduce her resolution within 30 days of the war's start, it is not privileged, meaning it cannot force its way onto the floor automatically. It now needs 60 votes to advance and requires Thune's cooperation to get scheduled at all.
Before senators left Washington for a weeklong recess, Thune addressed the growing pressure from his own conference but offered little commitment. He told reporters he is "listening carefully to what the members of our conference are saying" about the need for an authorization vote.
When asked directly whether a vote would happen, Thune was blunt:
"At this point, I don't see that."
Instead, the South Dakota Republican suggested that regular military briefings would help shape the conference's comfort level. He said that "getting readouts from our military leadership on a somewhat regular basis, I think, will be helpful in terms of shaping the views of our members about how comfortable they are with everything that's happening there and the direction headed forward."
Briefings are fine. But briefings are not votes. And the Constitution does not ask senators to feel "comfortable", it asks them to authorize or refuse to authorize the use of military force. Thune's reluctance to schedule a floor vote puts him in the position of shielding his conference from a politically uncomfortable choice while the legal clock ticks past zero.
Murkowski's track record of breaking with Republican leadership is well established. She was the lone Republican "no" vote on the SAVE Act earlier this year, and her willingness to chart an independent course is not new. What is new is the number of Republicans lining up behind her on this particular question.
The Hill reports that as many as five other Republicans could vote to end military hostilities against Iran unless Murkowski succeeds in passing an authorization resolution that gives the conflict a legal foundation.
Sen. Susan Collins of Maine voted Thursday for a resolution to halt further military actions against Iran unless Congress authorizes them. That vote marked a dramatic reversal: Collins had previously voted five times to defeat similar measures since the war began. Two weeks before the vote, she signaled her shift plainly.
"The 60-day trigger is a very important one. At that point, Congress has to authorize the military action to continue. I will not support extending the hostilities beyond that 60 days except for wind-down activities."
Collins and Murkowski have both been at the center of recent intra-party friction. Their resistance to Trump-backed nominees earlier this year stalled the Casey Means confirmation, and their willingness to defy leadership on high-profile votes is a recurring feature of this Congress.
Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky was the only other Republican to vote to halt operations against Iran on Thursday. Paul has voted consistently against the conflict since it began on February 28.
If just three more Republicans join Collins and Paul, the Democratic-sponsored war powers resolution would pass the Senate. Every Democratic senator opposes the conflict except Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, meaning the opposition needs only a small handful of GOP defections to clear the chamber.
Beyond Collins and Paul, several Republicans have publicly signaled deep reservations about continuing the war without congressional authorization.
Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina told reporters last week that the administration needs to provide far more information before senators can justify extending the conflict. His demands were specific:
"I think that we need details. We need to know what the strategic objectives are. What does success look like? What is the build-out for the budget request, right? We're having a significant increase in budget request."
Sen. John Curtis of Utah issued a statement to The Hill making his position unambiguous: "I have been clear: I will not support continued funding for the use of force without Congress weighing in." Curtis added that he is "currently engaged in thoughtful discussions with my Senate colleagues and also with the administration on a path forward that honors our respective constitutional roles, clearly outlines objectives and guidelines."
The pattern of Republican senators breaking with leadership on major votes has become a recurring dynamic in this Congress. Four Senate Republicans sided with Democrats to block the SAVE Act voter ID amendment in a separate fight, and the willingness of individual members to cross party lines on principle, or political calculation, is clearly not confined to one issue.
Sen. Todd Young of Indiana said at the Semafor World Economy conference last month that it was "time to wrap" up the war with Iran "as quickly as we can." Last week, Young added that the administration should work with Congress on a formal authorization if a ceasefire ends and military strikes resume.
Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri is also among those who have warned that Congress needs to authorize the conflict if it stretches past 60 days.
The math creates a straightforward dilemma for Republican leadership. If Thune schedules Murkowski's authorization vote and it passes, the conflict gains legal standing and congressional buy-in, but the administration must accept conditions, metrics, and exit criteria it may not want. If Thune refuses to schedule the vote, frustrated Republicans may instead join Democrats on a war powers resolution that amounts to a bipartisan demand for withdrawal.
Even if a withdrawal resolution passed the Senate, it would still need House passage and a presidential signature to carry the force of law. But the political damage of a bipartisan Senate vote against the administration's military posture would be real and lasting.
Public opinion offers no shelter. An ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos poll of 2,560 U.S. adults conducted between April 24 and 28 found that only two in ten Americans believe U.S. military operations against Iran have been successful. Six in ten said the United States made a mistake in using military force.
Those numbers create pressure from both directions. Hawks who want the conflict to succeed should want congressional authorization to strengthen its legal and political foundation. Skeptics who doubt the mission should want a vote to force the administration to define what success looks like. The only people served by avoiding a vote are those who prefer ambiguity to accountability.
The tensions between the White House and Senate Republicans on questions of loyalty and legislative priorities have been building for months. Trump's public labeling of Sen. Bill Cassidy as "very disloyal" after the Casey Means confirmation collapsed illustrated how thin the margin for intra-party dissent has become. The Iran authorization fight carries higher stakes than a nomination battle, it involves the constitutional allocation of war powers and the lives of American service members.
Senators return from their weeklong recess facing an unresolved question: will the Senate vote on whether to authorize the war with Iran, or will it continue by default, without the explicit consent of the people's elected representatives?
Murkowski's resolution, even if it never reaches the floor, has already exposed a fault line. A significant number of Republican senators, not just the usual suspects, but members like Tillis, Curtis, Young, and Hawley, are publicly demanding that the administration justify the conflict's objectives, costs, and endgame before they will support its continuation.
The open questions are substantial. What specific military operations are ongoing? What strategic objectives has the administration defined? What does the budget request look like? Has Murkowski formally introduced her resolution, and if so, what does its text contain? None of these have been publicly answered in full.
Thune's instinct to run out the clock may be understandable as a matter of short-term conference management. But the War Powers Act exists precisely because the Founders understood that the decision to wage war is too consequential to leave to one branch of government alone. Senators who claim to revere the Constitution cannot duck this vote forever.
If Congress won't vote on a war, it has no business complaining about how the war is fought.
