· · · · ·

Democrats Vow to End the Iran War: What Congress Can and Can’t Do

Schumer says Democrats will end the Iran war. Our table shows each tool Congress has, the votes it needs and whether Trump can veto it, plus the 2026 votes.

ByPeter
West front of the U.S. Capitol in Washington with its dome under a blue sky
The west front of the U.S. Capitol in Washington. Photo: Architect of the Capitol, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.

WASHINGTON, Nov. 5, 2026 — Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said on Wednesday that his party will use its new majorities in Congress to end the Iran war. “We are going to end the war,” Schumer said at a Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee press conference, The Hill reported. “We have some Republicans already who have joined us in ending the war, and the Founding Fathers had the power of the purse as one of the ways of deterring a president who does war without the consent of the American people.”

Democrats won control of both the House and the Senate in Tuesday’s midterm elections, AP projected. The new Congress takes office on Jan. 3. The question now is mechanical: which tools can a Democratic Congress use, how many votes does each one need, and which of them can President Donald Trump block with a veto?

Where the war stands

U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran began on Feb. 28, 2026, under the name Operation Epic Fury, according to the Congressional Research Service (CRS). An April ceasefire and a June 17 memorandum of understanding both broke down, and the memorandum formally expired in August. CRS cites a Congressional Budget Office estimate of $38 billion in U.S. military costs as of Aug. 1. Defense casualty data cited by CRS list 18 U.S. service members killed and 824 wounded as of Sept. 15.

Trump told Reuters that Iran was “a part” of Tuesday’s result, IBTimes reported. Vice President JD Vance wrote on X that the war was the reason Republicans lost and that “any honest conversation about where we go from here must start there,” according to The Conversation.

Timeline: the war powers votes of 2026

CRS counts six House votes on concurrent resolutions ordering U.S. forces out of hostilities with Iran, three of which passed, and 11 Senate votes on joint resolutions, one of which passed. The key dates:

  • May 19: The Senate approves a joint resolution, S.J.Res. 185 (CRS).
  • June 3: The House adopts H.Con.Res. 86 (CRS).
  • June 23: The Senate agrees to H.Con.Res. 86, so both chambers have now passed the same withdrawal order (CRS).
  • July 23: The House adopts H.Con.Res. 89. IBTimes puts the July vote at 214–208, with four Republicans in favor.
  • Sept. 15: The House adopts H.Con.Res. 93, 220–204 with seven Republicans in favor, according to IBTimes.
  • Sept. 24: The Senate rejects a war powers resolution 49–50, IBTimes reports.

The Hill reports that Republican Sens. Thom Tillis, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski and Rand Paul have voted with Democrats to advance such measures. Sen. Bill Cassidy voted yes in June and no in late September.

The toolbox: what each option requires

| Tool | Legal basis | Votes needed | Can the president veto it? | Record so far | |—|—|—|—|—| | Concurrent resolution ordering withdrawal | War Powers Resolution Sec. 5(c), 50 U.S.C. 1544(c) | Simple majority in each chamber | It is not sent to the president, but its binding force has been disputed since 1983 | Three House passages and one Senate passage this year | | Joint resolution directing removal | Ordinary legislation | Majority in each chamber; two-thirds of each to override a veto | Yes | One Senate passage, on May 19 | | Funding limit in a spending bill | Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 9 | Majority in each chamber, then a signature or an override | Yes, but the limit rides on a must-pass bill | Somalia, 1993 | | Declining to pass war funding | Power of the purse | None, because inaction needs no vote | No | The June request is still pending | | Hearings, subpoenas, impeachment | Oversight powers | Committee majorities; a House majority to impeach, two-thirds of the Senate to convict | No | Listed by legal scholar Markus Wagner | | Review of any nuclear deal | Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, P.L. 114-7 | Set by the statute | Disapproval can be vetoed | It would apply to any U.S. nuclear deal with Iran, CRS says |

The first row shows the core legal problem. Section 5(c) of the 1973 War Powers Resolution says forces “shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.” A concurrent resolution is never presented to the president. In INS v. Chadha (June 23, 1983), the Supreme Court struck down a similar legislative veto. CRS writes in its guide to the law that this makes the withdrawal clause constitutionally suspect. CRS adds that every president since 1973 has called the War Powers Resolution unconstitutional.

The power of the purse

The Constitution states: “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” Wagner, writing in The Conversation, names funding as one of three paths, along with legislation and oversight or impeachment. He puts the cost of the war at almost US$50 billion. That is higher than the CBO figure, which ran only to Aug. 1.

Funding limits have worked before. According to CRS, the fiscal 1994 defense spending law (P.L. 103-139, Sec. 8151), signed on Nov. 11, 1993, cut off money for U.S. operations in Somalia after March 31, 1994. A later law, P.L. 103-335, ended funding for a continuing presence in Somalia after Sept. 30, 1994. They have also failed. Wagner recalls that in 2007, President George W. Bush vetoed an Iraq bill that set a withdrawal timetable, and Democrats then dropped the timetable.

Money is also where the White House needs Congress most right now. In June, the administration asked for supplemental funds that included $21 billion for munitions and $17.3 billion for operational costs, according to CRS. The Hill describes the total emergency Pentagon request as nearly $70 billion and reports that it has stalled. The regular defense appropriations bill is also stuck. Sen. Brian Schatz, the incoming Democratic whip, said that “if the war’s not over it’s going to be extremely difficult” to pass the defense policy and spending bills, The Hill reported.

Analysis: why it matters

The new majorities do not change the basic arithmetic of a veto. Any bill that orders U.S. forces out of the war, or that bans spending on it, still needs Trump’s signature or two-thirds of both chambers. The September tallies show that neither chamber is near two-thirds. A concurrent resolution avoids the veto, but the June record shows its limits: U.S. strikes on Iran resumed on June 26, three days after the Senate vote, according to CRS.

The tool that does not need a supermajority is the one Schumer named: money. A majority can refuse to pass the supplemental request, attach conditions to the full-year defense bill or let deadlines pass. The administration is asking Congress for tens of billions of dollars. Congress can also use hearings and subpoenas to put the cost on the public record, and CRS notes that any nuclear deal would face review under INARA.

The risk for Democrats is the one Wagner describes from 2007. A funding fight with troops in the field can be framed as cutting off forces, and in 2007 the majority backed down. The Somalia case shows the other model, a dated cutoff written into a law the president signs. Three signals will show which path Democrats take: whether the lame-duck Congress acts on the stalled request before Jan. 3, what Iran language appears in the first defense spending bill of 2027, and whether Republicans such as Tillis, Collins, Murkowski and Paul back a dated funding limit, not only a war powers resolution.

Sources

Additional sources

Related coverage

Related on Peter’s World

Recommended articles