"🚨 MASSIVE SENATE SHOCK: A LONE DEMOCRAT FLIPS THE VOTE AND SAVES TRUMP AT THE LAST SECOND!"
The Senate narrowly rejected another attempt Thursday to restrict President Donald Trump’s authority to continue U.S. military operations against Iran without explicit congressional authorization, as a small group of Republicans joined Democrats in challenging the administration’s handling of the conflict.
The Senate voted 49-50 against the war powers resolution, falling just short of adopting a measure that had previously cleared the House.
The resolution would have directed Trump to remove U.S. armed forces from hostilities involving Iran unless Congress specifically authorized continued military action through a declaration of war or an authorization for use of military force.
Four Republicans — Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Rand Paul of Kentucky and Thom Tillis of North Carolina — joined Democrats in supporting the measure.
Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania was the only Democrat to oppose it, while Democratic Sen. Angela Alsobrooks of Maryland did not vote.
The 1973 War Powers Resolution was enacted after the Vietnam War in an effort to constrain presidents from maintaining prolonged military engagements without congressional authorization.
But multiple adminstrations since have claimed the act is an unconstitutional restraint on the president’s role as commander-in-chief.
Most Senate Republicans remained opposed to the measure, arguing that restricting the president while U.S. forces remain engaged against Iran could undermine American military operations and negotiating leverage.
The vote comes as the Iran war approaches its seventh month and as concerns about the conflict have increasingly spilled into the November midterm campaigns.
Rising gasoline and diesel prices have intensified the political debate, particularly in competitive congressional races.
Some Republican candidates who previously supported Trump’s handling of Iran have recently called for the conflict to end quickly.
Republican Senate candidates Mike Rogers in Michigan and Ashley Hinson in Iowa both called this week for a swift conclusion to the war, citing its effect on American energy prices and household costs. Hinson had previously voted multiple times against House efforts to restrict Trump’s war powers.
Thursday’s vote was the latest in a long series of congressional attempts to impose limits on the administration’s military campaign.
The Senate has considered 14 Iran-related war powers resolutions since the United States and Israel began military operations against Iran in February, according to reports.
Congressional critics of the war argue that the Constitution gives Congress, rather than the president, the authority to declare war and that months of sustained hostilities require explicit legislative approval.
The Pentagon has estimated the war has cost approximately $42 billion, according to Stars and Stripes. At least 19 American service members have been killed and more than 750 injured during the conflict, Sen. Andy Kim, D-N.J., said during Thursday’s debate.
Republicans supporting Trump have argued that the president possesses sufficient authority as commander in chief to conduct the military campaign and that congressional restrictions could interfere with efforts to force Iran into negotiations.
Trump has continued to publicly defend the war.
During his address to the United Nations General Assembly this week, the president argued that military action had prevented Tehran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and called on other countries to increase economic pressure on Iran.
Trump also said he believes an agreement with Tehran remains possible, while warning that the United States could dramatically escalate military action if diplomacy fails.
Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said Wednesday that Tehran remained open to a diplomatic resolution but would not negotiate under military threats.
Thursday’s Senate vote followed another significant congressional challenge to Trump’s Iran policy.
The House passed a similar war powers measure last week by a 220-204 vote, with seven Republicans joining Democrats. That vote represented the third time the House had voted to end U.S. participation in the Iran conflict.
"🚨 BRANSON'S SCATHING ATTACK! — HE BLASTS TRUMP OVER PUTIN TIES AND URGES EUROPE TO STAND FIRM!"
British billionaire Sir Richard Branson has launched a fierce public attack on Donald Trump, accusing the U.S. administration of appeasing dictators and putting personal preferences ahead of American and allied interests.
The Virgin Group founder made his criticism in a LinkedIn post published this week, questioning why Trump appeared so willing to accommodate Russian President Vladimir Putin while Ukraine continues to face Russia’s invasion.
Branson described the administration as an “appeaser to autocrats and dictators,” arguing that its approach could weaken confidence among America’s traditional allies and undermine the interests of democratic nations.
He also raised a pointed question about the president’s relationship with Putin, asking why Trump seemed to flatter the Russian leader despite the continuing war and widespread international concern over Moscow’s actions.
The remarks come amid renewed controversy over a reported agreement involving Russian diesel supplies and a temporary easing of U.S. sanctions on Russian energy exports.
Trump has defended the arrangement as beneficial to fuel markets, while critics argue that allowing Russian energy revenues to flow could indirectly help Moscow sustain its war effort.
Branson called the deal deeply hypocritical, pointing to the contrast between Washington’s previous willingness to penalize countries purchasing Russian energy and its own decision to ease restrictions.
His criticism extended beyond energy policy. He also condemned Trump’s public attacks on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, describing the administration’s treatment of Ukraine as a betrayal during a period of war and suffering.
The billionaire’s intervention follows mounting concern in Kyiv and across Europe about the durability of American support for Ukraine, particularly as diplomatic efforts have struggled to produce a lasting settlement.
Branson also expressed alarm about reports involving restrictions on Starshield services used by Ukraine, a technology issue that has raised questions about the country’s access to crucial battlefield communications.
Some of Branson’s claims about the consequences of satellite-service restrictions have not been independently confirmed, and the details of decisions involving military communications remain disputed.
He urged European leaders to respond more decisively, arguing that the continent cannot simply wait for Washington to determine the future of Ukraine’s security and its broader relationship with Russia.
His proposed response reportedly included considering the use of frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine and supplying more advanced weapons, measures that would intensify the confrontation with Moscow.
The comments place Branson among a relatively small group of prominent business leaders willing to criticize Trump directly over foreign policy, despite the political and commercial sensitivities surrounding such interventions.
Branson has previously spoken out in support of Ukraine and criticized approaches that he believes would pressure Kyiv into accepting an unfavorable peace agreement with Russia.
The latest dispute also comes at a politically sensitive moment in the United States, with congressional midterm elections approaching and foreign policy increasingly intertwined with domestic debates over leadership and national priorities.
Supporters of Trump’s approach may argue that direct engagement with Moscow and energy-market flexibility can serve American interests, even when such policies provoke disagreement among allies.
Critics counter that concessions to Russia risk weakening deterrence and sending an unsettling message to countries relying on the United States for diplomatic, economic and military support.
The disagreement reflects a broader debate over whether negotiations and economic pragmatism can help end the war—or whether they could give Moscow additional leverage without securing meaningful concessions.
For Ukraine, the stakes remain immediate: continued military pressure, uncertainty over international support and the search for a settlement that preserves its sovereignty remain central concerns.
Branson’s intervention adds another prominent voice to the dispute, challenging the White House’s handling of Russia and demanding a stronger response from Europe as the conflict continues.
