Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) finds himself in an awkward bind: The self-dubbed “Shomer Yisrael” — “guardian of the people of Israel” — is now the “Shomer of the Democratic Party” — guardian of a caucus that has drifted increasingly leftward, especially when it comes to its support for Israel and aggressive action to deter Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

When he had the opportunity earlier this month to take a clean shot at President Donald Trump for not being tough enough against Iran — over reports the administration was working on a deal allowing Iran to maintain enrichment — he played to his history of hawkishness on Iran, taunting Trump for “folding” and “let[ting] Iran get away with everything,” facing backlash from some on the left in the process. 

But when Trump made the decision to bomb Iran’s nuclear sites last weekend, Schumer sided against a handful of pro-Israel stalwarts in his party and leading Jewish communal organizations, who praised the move as advancing peace in the region. Instead, he joined the majority of congressional Democrats, who blasted the administration for not seeking congressional authorization. 

“No president should be allowed to unilaterally march this nation into something as consequential as war with erratic threats and no strategy,” Schumer said Saturday. “Confronting Iran’s ruthless campaign of terror, nuclear ambitions, and regional aggression demands strength, resolve, and strategic clarity. The danger of wider, longer, and more devastating war has now dramatically increased.”

Schumer’s turnaround is raising eyebrows among Jewish and pro-Israel leaders, and his focus on congressional procedure is frustrating some in the pro-Israel community who wanted to see him support Trump’s efforts to eliminate Iran’s nuclear program.

“If your argument is leading with a technicality over war powers, you know you’re losing the broader debate,” a former Biden administration official told JI. “This wasn’t an open-ended military campaign — these were limited U.S. airstrikes. Every president in modern times has done it this way for limited airstrikes, and this isn’t any different.”

“I would like it to be that whoever does the right thing, no matter who they are or how much you otherwise dislike them, that at least certain truths can be recognized by everyone,” Democratic Georgia state Rep. Esther Panitch said. “One of those being that Iran’s nuclear program needed to stop. … We all need to take a step back and acknowledge that Trump did a good thing, even if we can’t stand him otherwise.”

Former Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations Gilad Erdan wrote on X, “When President Trump strikes Iran’s nuclear sites to stop a regime openly calling for Israel’s destruction (and responsible for the [murder] of many many Americans), Schumer’s only reaction is… complaining about congressional procedure? Seriously, Chuck? Don’t you have anything positive to say about removing an existential threat from Israel and the free world?”

Democratic Georgia state Rep. Esther Panitch, who has been outspoken in criticizing members of her own party over lukewarm support for, or criticism of, Israel, said that Schumer’s position would appear to be one of “blind partisanship,” if he hadn’t expressed the same criticisms of Democratic presidents’ own unilateral military actions.

“I would like it to be that whoever does the right thing, no matter who they are or how much you otherwise dislike them, that at least certain truths can be recognized by everyone,” Panitch said. “One of those being that Iran’s nuclear program needed to stop. … We all need to take a step back and acknowledge that Trump did a good thing, even if we can’t stand him otherwise.”

Panitch was the only Democrat in the Georgia House to join a letter with Republicans backing the Iran strikes.

Schumer’s spokesperson, Angelo Roefaro, told JI, “Senator Schumer has long said Iran cannot obtain a nuclear weapon and he voted against his own party when he didn’t think President Obama’s Iran deal went far enough.” 

“He’s also long said that the executive branch cannot ignore the role of Congress when it comes to taking military action(s), yet that is exactly what is happening right now, and that is unacceptable when the stakes are so high and when key questions, including how the administration will prevent Iran in the long-term from obtaining a nuclear weapon, remain unanswered,” Roefaro continued.

“He has got tremendous pressures facing him,” Hank Sheinkopf, a New York-based Democratic consultant told JI. “There are people in New York who would want him to be much more vociferous in support of the attack on Iran … but his party isn’t in that place.”

Publicly, Schumer has also been critical of the administration for failing to brief him and other lawmakers to show the necessity of the strikes, or that they accomplished the administration’s intended goal. He’s suggested that’s a sign that the strikes were not successful, as one leaked intelligence report has indicated.

“This last-minute postponement is outrageous, evasive, and derelict. Senators deserve full transparency, and the administration has a legal obligation to inform Congress precisely about what is happening. What is the administration so afraid of?” Schumer said in a new statement Tuesday. “Such obstruction undermines the very principles of accountability and oversight that safeguard our democracy.”

One analyst argued that Schumer’s position as Democratic leader places him in a politically difficult bind.

“He has got tremendous pressures facing him,” Hank Sheinkopf, a New York-based Democratic consultant told JI. “There are people in New York who would want him to be much more vociferous in support of the attack on Iran … but his party isn’t in that place.”

He argued that Schumer, as the leader of a minority party, needs to focus on attracting younger voters back to the party, and in protecting the coalition he does have — both groups that largely oppose the strikes.

Sheinkopf also said Schumer’s stance is “absolutely a product of internal caucus politics. … The minority party’s job is to be on the other side of the president and the leadership, and that’s what they’re doing. So it should not be surprising, and Sen. Schumer’s positioning should not be surprising at all.”

Schumer’s comments over the weekend echo the stance he took in 2020 on potential military action against Iran, when he backed similar legislation following the strike that killed Quds Force head Gen. Qassem Soleimani. He also backed a bill that would withhold funding for war with Iran.

“Congress, unequivocally, must hold the president accountable and assert our authority over matters of war and peace,” Schumer said at the time, remarks to which Schumer’s office referred JI. He also criticized the administration for failing to provide “a clear picture … about our strategy in the region.”

Schumer has said he regretted his vote to authorize the Iraq War and has pushed, including during the Biden administration, for repeal of the 2001 and 2002 Authorizations for Use of Military Force undergirding the war on terrorism, arguing that Congress needed to reassert war powers and prevent another inadvertent war in the Middle East.

But he didn’t publicly offer the same direct and pointed opposition to strikes undertaken by previous Democratic administrations without congressional authorization in places such as Libya and Yemen.

Schumer’s office also referred JI to his past opposition to Iran’s nuclear program and opposition to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, as well as his support for the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, which requires the administration to submit for congressional review any nuclear agreement with Iran.