Several Senate Democrats told Jewish Insider on Monday that calls to “globalize the intifada” are unacceptable and must be condemned, amid concerns from Jewish leaders and organizations over presumptive New York City Democratic mayoral nominee Zohran Mamdani’s defense of the slogan.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who has thus far not endorsed Mamdani, told JI he plans to meet with Mamdani in a few weeks, when asked about Mamdani’s refusal to condemn the slogan.

“Sen. Schumer condemns the phrase ‘Globalize the Intifada’ and believes it should not be used because it has such dangerous implications. As Senator Schumer said after the death of Karen Diamond, the attack in Boulder continues to serve as a grave reminder of the deadly consequences of the rise in antisemitism,” a spokesperson for Schumer told JI.

“I don’t know what [Mamdani’s] position is on it, but I certainly think that the call to spread the intifada is the kind of incitement that can lead to extremist violence,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) told JI.

Blumenthal added that he is “an advocate of increasing the Nonprofit Security Grant Program, which protects against terrorist hate crimes to synagogues, mosques, churches and similar community institutions, and so I’m deeply concerned about incitement and hate speech that can lead to hate crimes.”

Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-NV) said calls to globalize the intifada must be condemned.

“At a time when antisemitism is rising at alarming rates in the U.S., leaders of both parties have an obligation to stand up, speak clearly, and unequivocally condemn hatred and bigotry in every form,” Rosen said in a statement to JI. “The intifadas were periods marked by unspeakable violence and terror against innocent Israelis, and it should not be a difficult decision for anyone to condemn the antisemitic call to globalize these violent attacks. Our words matter — and in moments like this, silence is not an option.”

“I’m not a member of the Jewish community or a NYC voter. Personally, I would never use or defend this deeply troubling phrase,” Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) said in a statement to JI. 

Some other Senate Democrats declined to comment or said they hadn’t been following Mamdani’s remarks.

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), who thus far has declined to endorse Mamdani, said in response to a listener call on WNYC last week that constituents she has spoken to are “alarmed” by Mamdani’s past comments.

“They are alarmed by past public statements. They are alarmed by past positions, particularly references to global jihad,” Gillibrand said. “This is a very serious issue because people that glorify the slaughter of Jews create fear in our communities. The global intifada is a statement that means ‘destroy Israel and kill all the Jews.’”

She emphasized that Mamdani needs to understand and accept that “globalize the intifada” is viewed by the Jewish community as, inherently, a call for violence against Jews.

“It doesn’t matter what meaning you have in your brain,” Gillibrand said, when pressed on Mamdani’s claims that he does not view the statement as a call for violence. “It is not how the word is received. When you use a word like ‘intifada’ to many Jewish Americans and Jewish New Yorkers, that means you are permissive for violence against Jews.”

“It is a harmful, hurtful, inappropriate word for anyone who wants to represent a city as diverse as New York City with 8 million people, and I would be very specific in these words, and I would say, ‘You may not use them again if you expect to represent everyone ever again because they are received as hateful and divisive and harmful, and that’s it,’” she continued. 

She said that Mamdani, if elected, will “need to assure all New Yorkers that he will protect all Jews and protect houses of worship and protect funding for not-for-profits that meet the needs of these communities.”

She said she had spoken to Mamdani about Jewish community security issues last week, and said that he “agreed to work with me on this and to protect all residents. …  I will work with him when he gets elected, if he gets elected, to make sure everyone is protected.”

Speaking on CNN on Monday, Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-NY) called the intifada slogan “deeply offensive” and said that “every elected official, without exception, should condemn it.”

Torres said that condemning the language was not the same as criminalizing it, responding to Mamdani’s own comments saying he did not believe he should “police” speech: “No one‘s advocating for imprisonment. I mean, every elected official has an obligation to condemn hatred, whether it‘s antisemitism or Islamophobia,” the New York congressman said.

House and Senate Democrats are pushing ahead with efforts to bring forward votes this week in both chambers on resolutions that aim to constrain the administration from taking any further military action against Iran in spite of President Donald Trump’s surprise announcement of a ceasefire between Israel and Iran.

Trump’s diplomatic breakthrough is creating some political awkwardness for Democrats who had insisted the president would escalate the war, but many are still likely to support the resolutions, which reflect their dissatisfaction with the president’s decision to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities without congressional authorization. 

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), the lead sponsor of one war powers resolution in the House, said he no longer plans to force a vote on it, explaining, “if we’re not engaged in hostilities, I think it’s a moot point.” He said he had told House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) that he would not attempt to bring the resolution to the floor.

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA), Massie’s lead co-sponsor, said, “The anti-war advocacy of the left and right broke through. I am glad cooler heads prevailed and Trump seems committed to stopping this war. I spoke with Rep. Massie this evening and we are taking a wait and see approach about whether a vote will be needed now on our War Powers Resolution.”

But a group of senior House Democrats introduced a separate resolution on Monday evening, which they are expected to continue to advance.

The U.S. strike, Massie’s resolution and broader questions about the situation in Iran have been causing heartburn for many House Democrats, particularly supporters of Israel, Democratic staff sources told Jewish Insider earlier Tuesday.

Democratic staffers not authorized to speak publicly explained that, behind the scenes, the largely unified public Democratic opposition to the strikes has been driven by several factors, including the perceived lack of political support for the strikes, concerns about an escalating war and frustration with the Trump administration.

“I think a lot of members support the strike privately but see this as a politically vulnerable issue for [Trump],” one Democratic staffer said.

Another staffer said that Democrats are afraid of echoes of the Iraq war: If the U.S. ends up in a full-scale, protracted, politically unpopular war with Iran, they don’t want to be on record as having supported it.

And, the staffer said, there’s a deep level of distrust for the Trump administration, which acted largely unilaterally in the strikes, did not make efforts to keep congressional leaders informed about the strikes and hasn’t yet presented any evidence to Congress of the need for the strikes or their success.

Rep. Jim Himes (D-CT), the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, who worked with other top Democrats on an alternative war powers resolution, said the resolution effort should continue “if United States forces remain engaged.”

Himes, along with Reps. Greg Meeks (D-NY) and Adam Smith (D-WA), the top Democrats on the Foreign Affairs and Armed Services committees, introduced their own war powers resolution Monday evening, after the ceasefire was announced.

Whether that resolution will come to the floor remains an open question. The House speaker was reportedly working on a procedural plan that would strip the Massie resolution of its privileged status, sidestepping a vote on the House floor, and could potentially use the same tactic to defuse the new Democratic resolution.

On the Senate side, Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) said he also plans to push forward with his efforts, and said that Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) is working with Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) to facilitate a vote.

“Whether or not a ceasefire between Israel and Iran comes to fruition — and I hope it does — I will move forward to force a vote on my resolution to require Congress to debate and vote on whether or not the United States should engage in a war with Iran,” Kaine said in a statement to JI. “Americans don’t want matters of war and peace, bombing and ceasefire, to rest upon the daily whims of any one person.” 

“That’s why the Framers of our Constitution decided that war should only be declared following a public debate and congressional vote,” Kaine continued. “Congress must affirm its commitment to that principle and send a clear message: no more endless wars.”

Other Democrats agreed that a war powers resolution should still receive a vote in spite of the ceasefire.

Rep. Greg Casar (D-TX), the chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, told JI, “At the end of the day, I think that a war powers resolution makes good sense to vote on and for Congress to finally reassert what is in black-and-white letters in the Constitution, which is that only Congress and the consent of the American people can start a war.”

Rep. Pat Ryan (D-NY), a former Army intelligence officer, argued that the uncertainty of the situation necessitated that Congress step in.

“It’s a very volatile situation, which, to me, makes it even more urgent that we make clear and reassert what the Constitution of the United States says, which is that it is the Congress that has the authority to declare war or authorize the use of [force],” Ryan told JI.

He added that it “should be concerning to every American that multiple days after doing — not even a preemptive strike — a preventive strike, there’s still no legal justification, there’s still no clarity about the effectiveness.”

A memo sent by Trump to the Senate cited presidential foreign relations authorities enshrined in the U.S. constitution as the legal backing for the strike.

Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL), among the few House Democrats who supported the strikes, told JI that he wants to see Congress reclaim its power but that the administration also has the ability to take defensive action without consulting Congress. He said that the war powers resolution push is likely no longer relevant if the ceasefire continues.

“Based on the ceasefire that was announced, it if holds, it appears that the issue in this current climate is moot, but overall, still important,” Moskowitz said. “[The war powers resolution] is no longer relevant to this particular purpose. It would be more of a general ‘us reasserting our authority as Congress.’”

Kaine told reporters earlier in the day that his resolution in the Senate would come up for a vote on Thursday or Friday.

Kaine said that the vote was “fluid” but he expected to see Republican support, and that he expected nearly all Democrats, with the exception of Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA), to support it.

“I think the fluidity and change is something that I think warrants — this is why you get a congressional discussion, because these things can escalate,” Kaine said. “They can move in ways that are hard to predict, and that’s why a discussion and a vote is a good idea.”

He said that, “my colleagues on the Democratic side, regardless of whatever they feel about Iran, [believe] wars without Congress, wars that bypass us, are a bad idea.”

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) confirmed he planned to support the resolution as well, arguing that the Constitution is clear that war powers are vested in Congress and that his position on the issue has been consistent across administrations.

“There have always been people who argue the president can do whatever he wants,” Paul said. “The problem is, that’s a recipe for chronic intervention. It’s a recipe for endless war.”

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA), a pro-Israel Democrat, also said he supported the resolution.

Ahead of the ceasefire, some specific concerns with the wording of the Massie resolution had split Democrats, one Democratic staffer said. That prompted the separate resolution from Meeks, Himes and Smith. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) claimed at a press conference on Monday that he hadn’t reviewed the Massie resolution yet, indicating that he would not be supporting it. 

A Democratic staffer explained that there were fairly widespread concerns that Massie’s resolution could block the U.S. from continuing to support Israel’s defense.

The Democrat-led resolution includes a specific exception allowing the U.S. to defend itself or any ally or partner from “imminent attack,” whereas Massie’s resolution only allowed for continued defense of the United States and intelligence sharing with allies. The Democrats leading the resolution emphasized in a statement that it would allow U.S. forces defending Israel to continue their activities.

“What we’re trying to get clarity on is to ensure that there’s no ambiguity or doubt about our ability to fully support the defense of Israel and the Israeli people, that we can continue … intelligence sharing and information sharing, cyber,” Ryan said earlier, of the Massie resolution. “There are key dimensions where we have to continue to be very closely aligned.”

“My concern is less about the language of the resolution and more about who introduced it, frankly,” Ryan continued. Massie has a history of comments that colleagues on both sides of the aisle have condemned as antisemitic.

Jeffries, at his press conference, largely focused on the fact that the Trump administration had failed to inform Congress about the strikes in the normal manner and had still not provided a proper justification for the strikes or accounted for Iran’s nuclear material.

He also argued that the administration’s claims to have destroyed Iran’s nuclear program completely couldn’t be trusted.

Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD), a former House majority leader and perhaps the most prominent Democratic supporter of the strikes, told JI that his support for the strikes was consistent with unilateral action taken by administrations dating back to President Bill Clinton. 

He added that it would be “hypocritical” not to support the strikes now, when administrations have said for decades that they will not permit a nuclear Iran, and said that the recent International Atomic Energy Agency report showed that Iran was “too close” to a nuclear weapon and “stopping them was the right thing to do.”

Hoyer also noted that Congress moves more slowly than the executive branch and that a slow public debate over a potential strike in Congress over strikes would have “incentivized [Iran] to move ahead as quickly as possible.”

He said that as a general matter, however, he believes that it is important for Congress to be able to put a check on the administration’s ability to go to war, though he said that the decision to strike Iran was a long time coming.

Fetterman, the only Senate Democrat who has announced he plans to oppose the war powers resolution, blasted some colleagues who have called the strikes unconstitutional. He said he would have opposed the Kaine resolution before the strikes.

He noted that previous Democratic administrations had conducted similar “one-off” strikes and argued that congressional approval would only be needed if the U.S. was going to start a broader, protracted war.

Fetterman also blasted Democrats for joining Massie’s effort calling him, “that weirdo from Kentucky.”

Among Republicans, Massie’s resolution may have seen some additional support from a handful of isolationist Republicans, but likely not many. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), the Republican who, alongside Massie, has been most outspoken against the U.S. strike, told Punchbowl News she would not support the effort.

But she also said she wanted to push to cut off U.S. aid to Israel, and has previously condemned Israel’s military action against Iran. 

Asserting that President Donald Trump “owes Congress and the American people a strategy for U.S. engagement” in the Middle East, top Senate Democrats on Wednesday cautioned against potential U.S. strikes on Iran and argued that the president would need congressional authorization to conduct such an operation.

The signatories to the statement include Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Sens. Chris Coons (D-DE), Patty Murray (D-WA), Jack Reed (D-RI) and Mark Warner (D-VA), the top Democrats on several key Senate committees and subcommittees. The statement suggests that a direct U.S. military intervention in Iran would see little support among Senate Democrats.

Trump has indicated that he is considering carrying out strikes inside Iran but has yet to make a final decision.

“​​Intensifying military actions between Israel and Iran represent a dangerous escalation that risks igniting a broader regional war,” the statement reads. “As President Trump reportedly considers expanding U.S. engagement in the war, we are deeply concerned about a lack of preparation, strategy, and clearly defined objectives, and the enormous risk to Americans and civilians in the region.”

The lawmakers said they are “alarmed by the Trump administration’s failure to provide answers to fundamental questions” and demanded that the president seek authorization from Congress “if he is considering taking the country to war.” 

“Congress has not provided authorization for military action against Iran – we will not rubberstamp military intervention that puts the United States at risk,” the Democrats said. “Our foremost duty is to safeguard American citizens wherever they reside and to protect our troops serving on the front lines. The United States cannot sleepwalk into a third war in as many decades. Congress has a critical role to play in this moment.” 

Legislation has been introduced in the Senate to bar military action against Iran, which could come up for a vote as soon as next week.

“[Trump] owes Congress and the American people a strategy for U.S. engagement in the region. We need a clear, detailed plan outlining the goals, risks, cost, and timeline for any proposed mission, as well as how he will ensure the safe evacuation of Americans in harm’s way all across the region,” they continued. “We demand immediate, detailed answers on these and other urgent matters to determine the way forward.

At the same time, the statement describes Iran as a threat to the U.S. and its allies that “must not be allowed to attain a nuclear weapon.” 

“The United States stands firm in our support for the continued defense of Israel, our partner and ally,” they said. “Our commitment to Israel remains ironclad and we urge the administration to defend Israel against the barrage of Iranian airstrikes, including through the provision of additional air defense capabilities.”

Israel’s strikes on Iranian military and nuclear targets are prompting fractured responses from Senate Democrats, with a few offering full support for Israel and others forcefully condemning the strikes, while some have sought to carve out a path somewhere in the middle.

Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-NV), one of the most vocal pro-Israel Democrats in the Senate, offered her first comments on the strike Friday morning, saying that Iran cannot be allowed to have a nuclear weapon, and is “closer than ever” to developing one, as reflected in the International Atomic Energy Agency’s recent report that Iran had violated its nonproliferation commitments.

“The Iranian regime and its proxies have been very public about their commitment to the destruction of Israel and Jewish communities around the world. We should take them at their word,” Rosen said. “Israel acted in self-defense against an attack from Iran, and the U.S. must continue to stand with Israel, as it has for decades, at this dangerous moment.”

She also emphasized the need to protect U.S. troops in the region.

Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA), long a proponent of strikes on Iran, was the first Senate Democrat to offer support for the operation.

On the other side of the spectrum, progressives have been loudly denouncing the strikes. 

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said that the strikes are “an escalation that is deeply concerning and will inevitably invite counterattacks.”

She added that they endanger nuclear talks and U.S. servicemembers.

“I agree with President Trump’s instinct to distance the U.S. from Israel’s actions, but Iran and its proxies are unlikely to differentiate the U.S. from Israel. This is not the time to tie our hands by reducing our diplomatic presence and resourcing as the State Department and OMB [Office of Management and Budget] plan to do,” Shaheen said. “This is a dangerous moment for the region and world. The Trump Administration must quickly move to de-escalate the situation.”

Other progressive Senate Democrats have tried to accuse Israel of undermining President Trump’s wishes, even though Trump himself has publicly expressed support for the attacks in statements and media interviews into Friday morning.

“This strike by Iran is clearly a stick in the eye for the American president because in addition to striking nuclear facilities and at least one of their top research scientists, reportedly Israel also killed the chief negotiator who was negotiating with the United States of America and so it’s pretty transparent that this was an effort to submarine, to undermine our diplomacy,” Sen. Chis Murphy (D-CT) said on Friday morning on “Morning Joe.” “Now, it looks as if diplomacy has no chance.”

A handful of other Democrats have sought some path between those two poles, acknowledging Israel’s right to defend itself while pushing for deescalation and averting a concerted regional war.

Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA), the vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, emphasized the need to “avoid steps that will cause further escalation across the region,” while also stating, “Iran has threatened the safety of Israel and the region and Israel has an undeniable right to defend itself and its citizens.”

He said that his “foremost concern” is protecting U.S. personnel in the Middle East.

Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) said that the details, justification and consequences of the operation are unknown, while emphasizing that the U.S. had made clear that Israel acted alone and the administration continues to pursue peace.

“I have long believed that the world cannot tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran and that Iran and its proxies pose a serious threat to American interests. I am deeply concerned by the IAEA Board of Governors’ determination earlier today that Iran has failed to comply with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and Iran’s defiant subsequent declaration of a new underground enrichment facility,” Coons said. “Even so, tonight’s actions have the potential to lead to dangerous escalation and a full-scale regional war. I am following developments closely tonight and am urging restraint.”

“Everyone’s goal must now be the prevention of a full-blown regional war,” Coons continued. “The Trump administration and our regional partners must work together to reduce the risks of escalation and work towards a path forward that provides safety and stability for the entire region.”

As of Friday morning, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), the top Senate Democrat, was the only one of the top four congressional leaders who had yet to speak out about the attacks.

Schumer attended the Friday morning funeral of former Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) where he delivered a eulogy, and was expected to receive a briefing on the strikes afterward, according to a source familiar with his plans. Schumer was expected to issue a statement after the briefing.