Democrats are urging voters to believe that if they gain control of both the House and Senate in the upcoming November elections, they can effectively end President Donald Trump’s military operations in Iran. However, this assumption may be overly optimistic. While shifting congressional power can alter dynamics in Washington, it does not change the chain of command within the military.
The Limits of Congressional Power over Military Affairs
Since the initiation of military operations known as Operation Epic Fury on February 28, Congress has attempted to invoke war powers regarding Iran on numerous occasions, with at least 19 proposals being put forward. The House has voted several times to halt hostilities, including a recent measure passed on September 15, yet the Senate has consistently chosen to ignore these initiatives. This means the administration is not pressured to respond, maintaining the status quo.
Even if Democrats secure a majority in the Senate after the elections, significant change remains unlikely. A slim majority of 51-53 seats is insufficient to overcome a filibuster, which effectively allows the minority party to block legislation. The 1973 War Powers Act, which Democrats have frequently leaned on, often serves as a platform for political showmanship rather than actual policymaking. While it allows congressional members to make a public stance against the war, it does not translate into tangible action that could limit presidential military authority. Since the president can veto measures that restrict his powers, any attempt to rein in military operations would require a two-thirds majority in both chambers—a formidable challenge even in a favorable electoral environment.
Challenges to Utilizing the Power of the Purse
Critics of the ongoing military actions argue that Congress’s “power of the purse” should be the ultimate lever to influence U.S. military engagement. However, this authority is rarely exercised effectively. Even though it is feasible to draft an appropriations rider that would prohibit funding for offensive military actions, it still must clear both chambers of Congress. With military funding typically tied to essential operations, cutting off funds could also jeopardize support for active-duty personnel. Lawmakers are generally reluctant to support measures that could be perceived as endangering troops deployed overseas.
As the conflict has already resulted in the deaths of at least 21 American soldiers, many representatives may balk at the thought of voting for defunding actions that could further jeopardize their safety. For instance, Pennsylvania Democratic Senator John Fetterman has already aligned himself with Republicans on related issues. If efforts to defund military operations in Iran are perceived as putting troops at risk, more Democrats are likely to align with this perspective, complicating the potential for significant legislation to pass.
The Reality of Ongoing Military Operations
Military actions do not cease simply because a new Congress assumes leadership. There was an announcement from the administration declaring that hostilities were “terminated” following a cease-fire in April. While interpretations of the War Powers Act can vary, the prevailing view is that courts have historically deferred to the executive during ongoing military operations. Thus, the courts are unlikely to obstruct the president’s actions in order to enable Democrats to claim a political victory.
Following the election, Congress will still need to manage a lame-duck session. President Trump has indicated that a resolution may not materialize before the election. Since previous congressional votes have failed to alter the war’s trajectory, a transition in legislative leadership is unlikely to empower Congress to enact substantial change.
Ultimately, the cessation of military operations will hinge on the president’s assessment of Iran’s capacity for aggression or Tehran’s own waning resolve to confront the U.S. Even if congressional leaders call for votes addressing the conflict, without bipartisan support that can withstand a presidential veto, these actions would merely serve as political theatrics rather than affect real change. In the end, those who advocate for an end to the war must focus their attention on the White House rather than the Capitol.