The House voted 314-104 on Wednesday to reject an amendment to the 2027 State Department appropriations bill that would have cut all $3.3 billion in annual U.S. aid to Israel. However, 103 Democrats, a near-majority of the caucus, voted in favor of the measure, with 98 others voting no and 10 voting present.

The record number of Democrats voting in favor of cutting off U.S. aid to Israel highlights the extent to which Democratic support for the Jewish state has eroded, and comes months after a vote in which 40 Senate Democrats backed blocking some weapons sales to Israel. 

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) introduced the amendment last month to eliminate the $3.3 billion in annual foreign military financing provided by the U.S. to Israel as laid out in the 2016 memorandum of understanding between the two countries. The Kentucky lawmaker, who was defeated in his GOP primary this year, was the only Republican member to support the amendment.

Some Democratic officials — on both sides of the issue — described Massie’s amendment as poorly drafted and overly broad, warning that it would also impact non-military aid as well as U.S. Embassy operations in Israel. Democratic leadership ultimately did not whip members for or against the vote.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) said in a letter on Tuesday that he planned to oppose the amendment and efforts to strip all U.S. aid to Israel, despite also noting that the relationship between the two countries requires “urgent change.” 

House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-CA) also voted no on the amendment. Aguilar told Jewish Insider last month that support for Israel’s right to exist in safety and security should continue to be a policy position of the Democratic Party, but cautioned that support for Israeli government policies would not be unconditional. 

Meanwhile, House Minority Whip Rep. Katherine Clark (D-MA), in announcing she would vote yes, noted that the measure was “overly broad” and “not an attempt to have a serious and necessary debate about offensive military aid to Israel.” Despite her criticisms, she said her vote was a signal that the relationship needs to change.

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), once a reliable supporter of Israel, supported the Massie amendment, but called it an “unfortunate choice.”

“The United States must be a force for security and stability. The American people are rightly demanding an end to a perpetual cycle of war, and the Netanyahu government cannot maintain its current course,” Pelosi said. “Therefore, while this amendment is ill-conceived, I vote yes for the message that it sends.” 

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), a critic of Israel who is a potential Democratic candidate for president in 2028, called the vote a “very important moment.”

“A majority of Democrats voted in favor of this Massie amendment. To me what this says is that the majority of the Democratic party is most in touch with the American electorate writ large … and the Republicans are not,” Cortez said. “This has been an issue where both parties have been resistant to change.” 

Ocasio-Cortez said lawmakers who voted against the amendment are “stuck in the past.” 

Rep. Greg Casar (D-TX), who chairs the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said in a statement on Tuesday that he would support the amendment because the “American people are crying out for an end to U.S. tax dollars subsidizing Israel’s military.” Casar and the CPC whipped Democrats to support the amendment.

“At a time when millions are struggling to make ends meet, we are sending billions of dollars to a military that has killed tens of thousands of civilians in Gaza, the West Bank, and Lebanon,” Casar wrote. “I am aware House Democratic leadership has a different position on this amendment … I respect their leadership.” 

Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD), the former No. 2 House Democrat and a staunch supporter of Israel, opposed the amendment and argued it would “dangerously undermine America’s national security,” limit the U.S.’ ability to counter terrorist organizations and make it harder to leverage the U.S. relationship with Israel toward peace.

“I understand the frustration many members feel with some of the policies and actions of the current Israeli government — as well as their concerns about its commitment to the peace process and a two-state solution,” Hoyer said. “However, this amendment would embolden the enemies of peace, those who seek the complete elimination of Israel, and those looking for an excuse to murder Jews. It is a vote to weaken our ability to engage in the region, and it is a vote against American security, against American interests, and against Americans’ safety.”

Rep. Brad Schneider (D-IL), who voted no, lambasted the amendment as having no legislative impact or role in helping the prospects for Middle East peace.

“This cynical Republican amendment was put forward to stoke division and divide people here in the United States, not end the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians or provide a path forward,” Schneider said. “I will seek to understand how such a flawed legislative proposal — one that would hurt Israelis and Palestinians, as well as America’s standing in the world — generated support.”

He said that supporters of Israel must work to “rebuild a bipartisan consensus” in support of Israel as well as Palestinian self-determination.

Rep. Eugene Vindman (D-VA), who ultimately voted against the amendment, said that under Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, “Israel has lost its way,” suggesting that Netanyahu had undermined Israeli security and damaged the U.S.-Israel alliance.

“Yet, as a Jewish refugee who fled oppression in the Soviet Union, I have long believed that Israel is a refuge for many families like mine,” Vindman said. “These convictions made this one of the most difficult votes I’ve cast because Israel needs to change course. However, I could not support an amendment as poorly written as this one that would eliminate key funding provisions that support Palestinian security forces, humanitarian aid, and defensive systems to protect innocent civilians.” 

Key Democratic committee leaders, including the ranking members of the Appropriations, Foreign Affairs and Intelligence committees, all voted against the amendment, while Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA), the ranking member on the Armed Services Committee, voted in favor.

Several pro-Israel House Democrats who are facing contentious primary challenges in which Israel has become a key issue — including Reps. Wesley Bell (D-MO), Shri Thanedar (D-MI) and Ed Case (D-HI) — voted against the amendment.

Reps. Haley Stevens (D-MI) and Angie Craig (D-MN) also voted against the amendment, while Rep. Chris Pappas (D-NH) voted present. All three are running for the Senate.

But Rep. Seth Moulton (D-MA), who is running against Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) in Massachusetts and has tried to tack to the progressive Markey’s left, said in a statement released prior to the vote that he would support the amendment, writing, “We simply cannot continue to condone Netanyahu’s actions that are against our moral conscience and our own national security interests by perpetuating the status quo.”

Other lawmakers who have generally been reliable supporters of Israel — including Reps. Jake Auchincloss (D-MA), Glenn Ivey (D-MD), Pat Ryan (D-NY), Laura Friedman (D-CA) and Brittany Pettersen (D-CO) — voted for the amendment. 

“I just voted to block sending $3.3 billion of our taxpayer dollars to Netanyahu’s government. It’s wrong on every level,” Ryan said. “I expect groups like AIPAC will not support me in my future elections and frankly, I don’t want their support. Hardline stances that refuse to stand up to a corrupt and increasingly dangerous Netanyahu regime have no place in our politics.”

Auchincloss said that his vote to cut funding to Israel was designed to send a message to both President Donald Trump and Netanyahu. 

“With their disastrous war against Iran, their empowerment of settler violence in the West Bank, and their strategic incoherence against Islamist terrorism, both President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu have sacrificed [Congress’] trust,” Auchincloss said.

He said that the amendment is “not the ideal mechanism of action,” and raised concerns about Massie’s use of antisemitic tropes in his reelection campaign.

“I have weighed these problems against the central thrust of the amendment: there must be consequences for Trump and Netanyahu,” Auchincloss continued. “Those consequences should not impair the State of Israel’s right to defend itself against the atrocities of the terrorist regimes that threaten it. Israel and the United States have common interests, shared values, and a long history. Israel and the United States are allies.”

He also said that upcoming Israeli elections, the next memorandum of understanding with Israel and the long-term impacts of the Iran war offer “an opportunity to renew the U.S.-Israel alliance on shared principles and a bipartisan basis going into the 2027 appropriations process.”

Groups including AIPAC, J Street, the Jewish Democratic Council of America, Democratic Majority for Israel and the American Jewish Committee all opposed the amendment, though J Street said the result sent a “strong message” that Democrats agree that the party should pursue a “fundamentally different American approach to the U.S.-Israel relationship and the region.”

Over a dozen Democrats previously endorsed by AIPAC, including Auchincloss, Clark, Friedman, Pelosi, Pettersen, Ryan, Smith and Reps. Gabe Amo (D-RI), Maggie Goodlander (D-NH), Julia Brownley (D-CA), Josh Harder (D-CA), Steven Horsford (D-NV), Julie Johnson (D-TX), Bill Keating (D-MA), Seth Magaziner (D-RI), Richard Neal (D-MA) and Joe Neguse (D-CO), voted for the amendment.

Rep. Katherine Clark (D-MA), the No. 2 House Democrat, said she plans to vote for an amendment by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) to cut off U.S. aid to Israel next year — breaking with other members of Democratic leadership on the issue.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) said Tuesday that he plans to vote against the amendment but said Democratic leadership will not be whipping the vote, set for Wednesday afternoon. Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-CA), the No. 3 House Democrat, is also opposing the amendment.

Clark, in a statement, called the amendment “overly broad” and “not an attempt to have a serious and necessary debate about offensive military aid to Israel” and a Republican stunt. But she said that she’ll support it anyway as a signal that the U.S.-Israel relationship needs to change.

“I will be voting yes, not because I agree with the entirety of the amendment, or the GOP’s cynical motivations for its consideration, but because I believe we must change course,” Clark said, accusing Israel of failing to comply with “U.S. law, interests, and values” and arguing that the U.S. should not provide a “blank check.”

Clark called for a “new and sustainable path for true security in the Middle East,” including increased aid to Gaza, a halt to settlement construction in the West Bank, an end to settler violence and the Palestinian right to self determination.

She also said that Israel has a “right to exist as a sovereign, secure, and democratic Jewish state” and to “defend their people and their territory.” She said the U.S. should “continue to have a strong strategic alliance with Israel and support its defense,” as well as continue to support missile-defense systems, which fall outside the scope of the Massie amendment. She also called for fighting “the scourge of antisemitism whenever and wherever it appears.”

Rep. Greg Casar (D-TX), chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, also said on Tuesday that he would vote in favor of the amendment and is encouraging other Democratic lawmakers to do the same.

“At its best, the Progressive Caucus’ role is to be an independent voice and lead on important issues of peace and human rights,” Casar said in a letter to colleagues. The Democratic Party needs a new approach to Israel and Palestine. When Democrats retake the majority in November, I hope the Progressive Caucus can help lead our Party towards a position that secures safety, dignity, and self determination for Palestinian and Israeli civilians alike.”

He emphasized that the portion of non-military funding being blocked is small, and that “the American people are crying out for an end to US tax dollars subsidizing Israel’s military.”

Aguilar said on Tuesday that he plans to oppose the Massie amendment but echoed Jeffries in saying, “I strongly believe that we need a change in posture in the region,” and calling the upcoming end of the current U.S.-Israel memorandum of understanding “an opportunity to review what our relationship looks like.”

“We need an Israel that believes in free and fair elections. We need to ensure that they have a right to defend themselves, but we also need to do everything we can to have a Palestinian state,” Aguilar said.

He accused the Israeli government under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of having “done everything they can to isolate Israel, and we need to ensure that we are building new friends in the region, not having fewer.”

The House Armed Services Committee blocked an amendment that sought to strip a relatively routine provision on U.S.-Israel cooperation out of the 2027 National Defense Authorization Act by a bipartisan voice vote.

Leaders of the committee on both sides of the aisle spoke out against the amendment, led by Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA), saying that critics of the provision — who have claimed it would fuse the U.S. and Israeli militaries or subvert U.S. sovereignty — were misrepresenting the legislation.

The provision, Section 224 of the bill, builds upon existing U.S.-Israel cooperative programs in developing and acquiring defense technologies and requires the Pentagon to designate a single official to oversee all U.S.-Israel cooperative programs.

Khanna said, in introducing the amendment, that the “American people are tired of the arrogance and insolence of Prime Minister [Benjamin] Netanyahu telling America what we should do,” and described the amendment as a handout of additional U.S. support for Israel. He suggested that it would undermine U.S. sovereignty.

He also claimed, falsely, that Netanyahu had written to the sponsors of the NDAA provision praising them for it and framing it as his initiative and a way to subvert congressional oversight and approval.

Despite misrepresentations online, Netanyahu’s letter pertained to a separate piece of legislation endorsing his call to wind down U.S. aid to Israel, though both touch on the idea of expanding U.S.-Israel cooperative programs and co-development.

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle pushed back.

Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA), the Armed Services Committee ranking member, said he is “very sympathetic” to Khanna’s “frustration … with Netanyahu’s leadership in Israel” but said that “the way this amendment was described is simply not accurate.” And he emphasized that the vote was not a referendum on the U.S.-Israel relationship broadly.

“This is not a new framework,” Smith said, noting that the U.S. already has three existing cooperative programs with Israel to develop new technologies, and that the provision does not create any new programs. “To say that this is us bowing to the bidding of Israel on this is completely inaccurate. The reason we’re doing this is because we benefit from that technology development.”

He explained that the reason such partnerships exist with Israel is because Israel has developed battle-tested and -proven systems that the U.S. can benefit from.

“Taking a step back from using technology that is available to us just because we strongly disagree with where Israel is at right now, I think would be a mistake,” Smith said.

Rep. Mike Rogers (R-AL), the Armed Services Committee chair, emphasized that the provision does not create any new programs but instead improves oversight by designating a single official to be responsible for existing U.S.-Israel cooperative programs.

“Claims that this provision somehow cedes authority to a foreign government are simply ridiculous,” Rogers continued.

Reps. Ronny Jackson (R-TX), Don Davis (D-NC), Don Bacon (R-NE), Joe Wilson (R-SC), Jared Golden (D-ME) and Austin Scott (R-GA) also spoke against the amendment, offering similar arguments. Jackson and Davis were the lead sponsors of the FUTURES Act, on which the provision was modeled.

Jackson and Davis both emphasized that they had not received any communication from Netanyahu about the provision in question, and noted that it builds on an effort that has been established over multiple recent NDAAs.

Jackson noted that the legislation even requires public reporting on the cooperative efforts, including how they benefit the U.S. “Those saying Sec. 224 is a military merger removing U.S. sovereign command simply have not read or do not understand this provision,” Jackson said.

Davis said that the amendment would not stop the existing collaboration between the U.S. and Israel, but would “hinder our ability to cooperate more efficiently” against bad actors globally.

Golden argued, “Opponents of Sec. 224 are really allowing a broader political disagreement and these concerns about Israel … to override a program that fundamentally advances U.S. national security.” 

He emphasized that the provision doesn’t reduce U.S. oversight, provide Israel with access to U.S. data, give Israel control over U.S. defense programs or production, create a backdoor for military aid or “fuse” the U.S. military with Israel’s, referencing various arguments made against the program.

Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-CA) was the only member to join Khanna in supporting the amendment, claiming it would “institutionalize and expand U.S. military integration beyond anything in the history of the relationship, fusing our defense industries across research production and emerging technologies,” claiming that the effort contravenes U.S. arms sales laws, though no sales are involved in the provision under discussion.

She also suggested that the Israeli government was a cybersecurity threat to the U.S., pointing to the U.S. sanctions on the private Israeli spyware firm NSO Group.

AIPAC opposed the Khanna amendment, while J Street and a range of progressive groups supported it. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) has said he would introduce an amendment on the House floor to remove the provision if the Armed Services Committee failed to do so.

The committee rejected, by a 26-30 vote, an amendment by Rep. Pat Ryan (D-NY) to block any further funding for operations in or against Iran, except in defense of the U.S. or its allies and partners from imminent attack. Davis was the only Democrat to cross party lines to oppose the amendment.

“It would prohibit the president and secretary of defense from using my constituents’, our constituents’ tax dollars to continue waging this ill-conceived and unconstitutional war in Iran,” Ryan said, describing the amendment as consistent with the House war powers vote to halt the Iran war.

Rogers said that “this incredibly reckless amendment would prohibit our military from defending our service members and our allies against [Iranian] attacks.”

An amendment by Rep. Wesley Bell (D-MO) to instruct the Pentagon to institute a department-wide policy prohibiting the display of hate symbols and setting uniform standards to identify, address and review hate symbols was adopted by a voice vote.

“The department currently relies on a patchwork of service-specific policies governing tattoos, symbols, and workplace displays,” Bell said. “As a result, standards vary across the military, creating inconsistencies, and how hate symbols are identified, addressed, and enforced. That lack of uniformity creates unnecessary gaps and uncertainty where there should be clarity.”

Bell and other Democrats framed the policy as a response to the Coast Guard’s moves last year to reclassify displays of swastikas as “potentially divisive” rather than inherently banned hate symbols.

“The swastika is not politically divisive. It is one of the most universally recognized symbols of hatred in human history,” Bell said. “It represents racial supremacy, it represents antisemitism, violent extremism and the systemic persecution and murder of millions.”

The Anti-Defamation League praised Bell and the committee for passing the amendment.

An amendment by Rep. Seth Moulton (D-MA), which Moulton said sought a full accounting from the Pentagon of the costs of U.S. military operations against Iran, failed in a party-line vote. 

However, the text of Moulton’s amendment, as shared by the committee, included language calling for a diplomatic solution to the war in Iran and describing it as a “unilateral war of choice initiated by the president” without support from Congress, the American people or U.S. allies.

A separate amendment by Moulton, which conformed more closely to his description — requesting a report on the total cost of military operations in Iran including replacement value of equipment damaged or destroyed, the cost of munitions used, the costs for repairing or rebuilding damaged military facilities — was approved without incident as part of a bipartisan package of amendments.

As part of another bipartisan amendment package, the committee approved an amendment by Rep. Pat Harrigan (R-NC) would establish a U.S.-Abraham Accords Defense Cooperation Initiative, to improve cooperation between the U.S. and Abraham Accords countries, with a focus on air and missile defenses, missile development, intelligence, reconnaissance, planning special operations force development and joint military exercises.

The effort is aimed at deterring Iran and its proxies.

As part of that same amendment package, the committee added a request for the administration to provide Congress with a refreshed strategy for integrated air and missile defense with Middle East partners, which Congress first requested in a previous NDAA.

In another amendment package, the committee approved an amendment that would withhold 75% percent of U.S. funding for the Iraqi security forces until the Pentagon certifies that the Iraqi government has taken “credible steps” to reduce the influence and power of Iranian-aligned militia groups within the Iraqi security forces.

The committee also approved, as part of amendment packages, provisions requiring the Defense Department to report to or brief Congress on opportunities to expand defense partnerships in the Eastern Mediterranean to combat Hezbollah and other Iranian proxies, biosecurity risks from Iran, Russian influence and bases in Syria, the civilian harm investigation into the U.S. strike on a girls’ school in Minab, Iran, the Iranian drone attack that killed six U.S. service members in Kuwait on March 1 and the feasibility of using current authorities to support the professionalization of Syrian security forces.

The committee approved the amended NDAA by a 44-12 vote — an unusually large number of Democratic “No” votes on a generally bipartisan bill. Democrats had sought cuts to the overall topline funding proposal for the Pentagon in 2027, which Republicans rejected.

Republicans also successfully incorporated a provision to formally rename the Department of Defense as the Department of War, as the Trump administration has done informally.

The House passed its version of the 2026 National Defense Authorization Act on Wednesday, including an amendment that would repeal the Authorizations for Use of Military Force that allowed for the Iraq war and the Gulf War.

The House also passed a series of amendments aimed at countering the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement targeting Israel and enhancing defense cooperation with Israel.

An effort to repeal the Authorization for Use of Military Force passed by a bipartisan 261-167 vote, with 49 Republicans voting with 212 Democrats in favor of the amendment.

Rep. Brian Mast (R-FL), the chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said he agreed that there should be sunsets on AUMFs, but said that changes should not be made without discussions with key U.S. military leaders about how the repeal would impact U.S. activities and counterterrorism efforts and whether additional authorities would be needed to re-authorize ongoing U.S. operations.

“These are questions that were not asked, and the answers were not given,” Mast said. “We have, I think, probably large agreement on reasons to sunset things, but it should not be done in absence of doing something of this gravity in the proper way.”

Rep. Greg Meeks (D-NY), the ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, said that the AUMFs are “long obsolete” and that keeping them effective “only risk[s] abuse by administrations of either party to sanction military force that Congress has not consented or approved.” 

He said he’s committed to ensuring that the provision remains in the final version of the NDAA agreed to in negotiation with the Senate.

Repeal efforts for the AUMFs have seen substantial momentum in recent previous years.

Other amendments approved by voice votes as part of broader amendment packages aimed to counter international targeting of Israel, including banning the Defense Department from contracting with entities boycotting Israel, instructing the administration to monitor the impact of global arms embargoes, and other sanctions imposed on Israel, and determine how the U.S. can mitigate such issues. They also urged the administration to engage with allies to ensure they do not enforce International Criminal Court arrest warrants against Israeli officials and called on the Pentagon not to participate in defense exhibitions that exclude Israel.

To further reinforce U.S.-Israel defensive cooperation, other amendments would order the creation of a Defense Innovation Unit field office in Israel to engage with the government and private sector there on technological development and mandate that the U.S. and Israel study the possibility of integrating Israel into the U.S. defense industrial base.

Additionally, the House added requirements that the Pentagon report to Congress on the status of integrated air and missile defense cooperation in the Middle East, including lessons learned from recent attacks in the region; on joint U.S.-Israel efforts to increase production of Arrow missile defense interceptors, stockpiles of which were significantly depleted during the Israel-Iran war, including whether further authorizations or funding are needed; on U.S.-Israel joint military exercises, the missions rehearsed and how regional partners can be invited to join; and on the status of pending deliveries of military aircraft and air-launched munitions, including the reasons for any delays and how they can be resolved.

Other amendments would require the U.S, Egypt and Israel to study steps that they can take to block smuggling into Gaza from tunnels in Egypt or via the Mediterranean Sea and the Pentagon to report to Congress on the U.S.-Bahrain partnership agreement and possibilities for expanding it to include other regional allies.

Additional amendments seek to support Iranian dissidents and counter the Iranian regime: requiring a strategy on encouraging and enticing top Iranian officials to defect; requiring the Pentagon to help develop technologies to counter internet blockages imposed by Iran and other adversaries; requiring a strategy to counter Iran and Hezbollah’s operations in South America; and expanding reporting requirements regarding Iran’s terrorism strategy, proxies, relationship with Russia, supply chains and weapons production capabilities.

Another amendment would require the Pentagon to quickly release all files on the Iranian proxy attack on the Tower 22 facility in Jordan that killed U.S. service members in January 2024.

An additional amendment would award a medal to servicemembers involved in the U.S. strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Two amendments by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), which aimed to block U.S. support for Ukraine and Taiwan, were resoundingly defeated 372-60 and 422-9, respectively. An amendment proposed by Greene to strip out programs supporting Israel from the bill did not receive consideration or a vote on the floor.

Greene made similar efforts to block funding for Israel, Ukraine and Taiwan during consideration earlier this year of 2026 Pentagon funding, which were defeated along similar lines.

The amended NDAA passed the House by a 231-196 vote, with just 17 Democrats voting for the bill as most voiced objections to provisions relating to transgender medical care and renewable energy, among other issues. The Senate is considering its own version of the NDAA this week as well.
Among a slew of other issues, a series of proposed amendments aimed at cracking down on Turkey were not approved for consideration on the House floor.

A Senate war powers resolution aiming to block further U.S. military action against Iran appears to be building and solidifying support among Democrats ahead of an anticipated vote later this week.

Sens. Adam Schiff (D-CA), Andy Kim (D-NJ) and Tim Kaine (D-VA) announced on Tuesday they planned to introduce an amendment to Kaine’s resolution to specifically ensure that the U.S. can continue to share intelligence with Israel and to assist Israel’s defense and provide it with defensive equipment to counter attacks by Iran and its proxies.

A House resolution on the issue had prompted private divisions among Democrats earlier this week over a similar issue, with many lawmakers concerned that the resolution would prevent the U.S. from continuing to support Israeli missile defense, a Democratic staffer not authorized to speak publicly told JI.

The senators said in a statement they expect the full Senate will vote on the amendment prior to a final vote on Kaine’s resolution. They argued that the amendment makes clear to Iran that the U.S. will continue to defend Israel.

Kaine said that the ceasefire between the U.S. and Iran announced Monday night doesn’t change the necessity of the vote, and “actually gives you the space to actually have a decision about, prospectively, should we be at war with Iran without a vote of Congress.”

Asked by Jewish Insider whether he still anticipates that most or all other Democrats will still support the resolution, Kaine said, “They believe we should not be at war without a vote of Congress. They may have different points where a war would be the right thing to do, but that should not happen without a vote of Congress.”

He said he still expects to have multiple Republicans supporting the resolution, but the number is unknown. Only Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) has publicly voiced support.

Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ), asked about the resolution, said that there was not a “clear and imminent threat to the United States, to our citizens” and the administration “should have come to us and talked about this,” as it did prior to Operation Desert Storm, in which he served.

“You’ve got a goal, you talk to Congress about it. You get the force ready to do this. You talk to the adversary and you say, ‘Here are our options: Get out of Kuwait or we’re going to kick you out,’” Kelly said. “That occurred with a full, transparent discussion with the United States Congress, per the Constitution.”

Kelly reviewed a classified Defense Intelligence Agency assessment indicating the U.S. strikes had a limited effect on Iran’s nuclear program, and said that the situation shows the “recklessness of just rushing forward when you don’t have the follow-on plan, and you don’t really consider the consequence.”

He said the strikes were risky because Iran may now take its program completely covert and race to a nuclear weapon. “This has been my concern since the second this happened. Does this push them forward?” Kelly said.

Sen. John Hickenlooper (D-CO) said he hadn’t looked at the resolution but said “it seems like we had lots of time to be consulted.” 

Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) said she’s still examining the resolution but emphasized that she led legislation in 2020 to block military action against Iran following the killing of Quds Force head Gen. Qassem Soleimani.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) on Tuesday proposed another amendment to Kaine’s resolution, commending President Donald Trump for a “successful mission” in damaging the regime’s nuclear program. 

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) on Tuesday proposed an amendment to Sen. Tim Kaine’s (D-VA) war powers resolution, which would block the U.S. from taking further military action against Iran, commending President Donald Trump for a “successful mission” in damaging the regime’s nuclear program. 

Cruz introduced the amendment in anticipation of a vote later this week on the resolution, which would curtail the president’s ability to take any additional action targeting Iran without congressional approval. The amendment, if adopted, would attach language to the resolution celebrating the very actions it seeks to block.

“Members of the United States Armed Forces and intelligence community, and all those involved in the planning and successful execution of Operation Midnight Hammer on June 21, 2025, including President Donald J. Trump, should be commended for their efforts in a successful mission,” the amendment reads.

The Texas senator offered an identical amendment praising the president’s actions when Kaine introduced a war powers act in 2020 in response to Trump’s decision to assassinate Quds Force head Gen. Qassem Soleimani. That amendment, which said that those involved in the operation “should be commended for their efforts in a successful mission,” passed 64-34. 

“The Senate routinely passes this language to applaud presidents for operations like these, which make all Americans immeasurably safer. We came together to congratulate President Obama for liquidating Osama bin Laden, and the Senate voted to applaud President Trump for doing the same to Soleimani. I intend to ensure we do the same for this weekend’s crucial operation, which eliminated the existential threat to America of a nuclear-armed Iran,” Cruz told Jewish Insider in a statement. 

Kaine told reporters on Monday that his resolution was likely to come up for a vote on Thursday or Friday.