Trump upends Democrats' strategy on Iran war powers

axios.com ^ | Andrew Solender

[V_TWIN]

President Trump's declaration that hostilities with Iran are "terminated" has thrown Democrats' strategy around congressional war powers into turmoil, Axios has learned.

Why it matters: House Democrats, led by the Congressional Progressive Caucus, had been planning to force a war powers vote every day. It is now unclear whether that will — or even can — happen.

Lawmakers involved in the war powers effort have been quietly reassessing how to approach the matter when Congress returns next week, according to multiple aides and lawmakers familiar with the matter. "There's a lot to happen between now and next week," one senior House progressive told Axios. "Who knows how many times Trump could change his position between now and then."

Trump sent Congress a notification last week stating that, "The hostilities [with Iran] that began on February 28, 2026, have terminated."

Trump cited the ceasefire he brokered with Iran on April 7, writing that there has "been no exchange of fire between United States forces and Iran since" then. Democrats roundly rejected that framing of the situation, pointing to the U.S. military's blockade of Iranian vessels in the Gulf of Oman.

"With an active blockade and shooting, plus threats of resuming bombing at any moment, I don't know anyone who takes that argument seriously," Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) told Axios.

Between the lines: The notification was Trump's way of bypassing a War Powers Act requirement that he seek congressional approval for continued operations in Iran within 60 days of the conflict's inception.

But some Democratic lawmakers fear it may also be used by Republicans as a pretext to shut down their efforts to force votes to on war powers resolutions. A spokesperson for House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) did not respond to a request for comment on the matter.

---

TOPICS: Chit/Chat
KEYWORDS: commieshasthesads; democratshasthesads; iran; tdsbelow; warpowers

[Brian Griffin]

Israel can whack Iran’s oil industry and revenue by means proven by Ukraine to work well [Russian LNG tanker sinking, refinery attacks by drone] for which the leading nations of the West and their leftist leaders didn’t yell “war crime” or “genocide”.

I don’t see why the US Navy should look for Iranian mines in Iranian waters.

I don’t see why the US Navy should look for Israeli mines in Iranian waters.

[Brian Griffin]

Israeli submarines can enforce a blockade:

“AIP technology, especially fuel-cell systems with minimal moving parts, enables vessels to remain submerged for weeks.

“This dramatically enhances stealth and survivability while reducing acoustic and thermal signatures, making sonar and infrared detection exceedingly difficult.

“Extended underwater endurance also offers tactical advantages in surprise attacks, covert surveillance, mine-laying...”

https://worldisraelnews.com/israels-silent-guardians-the-idfs-advanced-submarine-fleet/

[Golden Eagle]

Also on Axios:

Iran and US exchange fire in Strait of Hormuz

https://www.axios.com/2026/05/07/us-iran-hormuz-strait-fire-exchange

[Brian Griffin]

first 60 days
purpose: to respond to Iranian terrorism
attacks: in Iranian territory & airspace & waters

second 60 days:
purpose: to free navigation through international waters & waters of the UAE & Oman
attacks: in international waters & waters of the UAE & Oman

Completely separate in purpose & places of attack, excluding defensive measures for endangered sailors required by international law (which can’t be barred by the War Powers Resolution)

[whitney69]

“I don’t know anyone who takes that argument seriously,” Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.)”

Apparently people smarter than you. It is a loophole in the war powers act that frees the POTUS of conflict thus no need to invoke anything to stop him. He is now policing open waters for terrorist attacks just like he did with the drug boats in our southern seas. There’s no war going on there as attacks on Iran have stopped. We are protecting shipping through the straits for everyone from everyone that wishes to stop it, not attacking just Iran. Sorry, no conflict with a single entity that would be covered. Brilliant.

Under the 1973 Resolution, any, president must report to Congress within 48 hours when introducing armed forces into hostilities or situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances. But an independent act of cutting off any ship to include Chinese, Russian, or anyone that is trying to take supplies into the straits to assist terrorists doesn’t fall under the war powers act. It has been done before without a declaration of war. The U.S. has done this via the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) to target groups responsible for 9/11, allowing for military, rather than just law enforcement, action.

wy69

[Gunslingr3]

I remember when conservatives could scoff at liberals for calling riots "mostly peaceful protests", and now I watch so called conservatives engaging in the same sophistry with the Iran war.

First, not even acknowledging it was a war when you start bombing other countries.

Then trying to imagine that the War Powers resolution is crafted so poorly that POTUS can just declare hostilities are over for a day and 'reset the clock'.

But that isn't what the law says:

The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.

No one can make the honest argument that sending our warships into the Persian Gulf isn't putting them "into a situation where imminent hostilities [are] clearly indicated by the circumstances."

And thus the President's popularity continues to plumb new lows.

[Gunslingr3]

Under the 1973 Resolution, any, president must report to Congress within 48 hours when introducing armed forces into hostilities or situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances.

Do you know what the law says when the President doesn't have Congressional authorization?

(b) Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.