The New School rejected a student government vote on Saturday to defund and sever ties with the private New York City university’s Hillel chapter, a vote that prompted condemnation from local lawmakers and Jewish groups, while drawing praise from a controversial Muslim advocacy organization.  

On Friday, the New School’s student senate approved a resolution to strip funding and cease collaboration with Hillel, the world’s largest Jewish student organization. In a 38-page report, the student organization alleged that Hillel violated international law by running programming in Israel, including Birthright trips and volunteer opportunities with the Israel Defense Forces. 

The move marked the first time a student government has voted to cut ties with the organization that acts as a hub of campus life for Jewish students — although many have called on their universities to end partnerships with Hillel, particularly after the Oct. 7, 2023, terrorist attacks in Israel and the ensuing war in Gaza . 

The New School Hillel called the vote “a deeply painful and antisemitic act, one that attempts to isolate Jewish students from a global community they have every right to belong to.” 

Local elected officials also condemned the vote in statements on Saturday.

Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-NY) called “the attack on Hillel … an ominous sign of the times we live in.”  

“This is hateful and vile antisemitism, plain and simple,” said Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY). Meanwhile, CAIR-NY’s executive director, Afaf Nasher, applauded the move, saying in a statement Saturday, “We welcome The New School’s decision to suspend funding for Hillel as a necessary step toward accountability and adherence to international human rights principles.”

The New School resoundingly rejected the student senate’s vote, saying on Saturday that it “does not have the authority to determine the recognition, funding, eligibility, or official status of registered student organizations.” 

The university also said it would take “immediate steps” to address the student senate’s action “and ensure it acts within its actual purview” going forward. 

The Jewish Community Relations Council of New York said it “appreciate[s] the New School administration for swiftly rejecting the unauthorized student government vote targeting Hillel” and called the vote a crossing of “every red line.” 

“We have been in direct contact with the local Hillel chapter to express our full support and unwavering solidarity,” the JCRC said in a statement. “We are also grateful for the partnership and leadership of our community allies at UJA-Federation of New York and appreciate the immediate outreach and strong solidarity expressed by Speaker Julie Menin. 

“For many Jewish students, Hillel is the primary space on campus where they practice their faith, celebrate their culture, express their identity, build community, and feel safe at a time of skyrocketing antisemitism. Efforts to isolate or remove Hillel from campus life are direct attacks on Jewish identity and Jewish student life. That crosses every red line. No other community would accept being targeted or excluded in this way, and neither will the Jewish community.”

The House narrowly voted to block a Democratic resolution to force an end to the war in Iran by a vote of 214-213-1, with all but one of the four Democrats who opposed a similar effort in March changing their votes to support it on Thursday.

Rep. Greg Meeks (D-NY), the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, had held off on calling a vote on the resolution in hopes that he would be able to win over enough Democratic holdouts and Republican defectors to pass the legislation.

Reps. Greg Landsman (D-OH), Juan Vargas (D-CA) and Henry Cuellar (D-TX), who voted last month against a similar resolution, flipped their votes to support the war powers effort. But Rep. Jared Golden (D-ME), who is retiring at the end of his term, voted no again.

On the Republican side, Rep. Warren Davidson (R-OH), who voted for the war powers resolution last time, switched his vote to “present.” Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) was the only Republican who voted for the resolution.

A small number of Republicans who have expressed skepticism about the war effort and could have been potential swing votes, including Reps. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) and Nancy Mace (R-SC), did not vote.

Golden said in a statement that the war powers resolution would “weaken our hand” in negotiations with Iran.

“I believe we must maintain a strong negotiation position over Iran’s nuclear program, freedom of movement in the international waters at the Strait of Hormuz, and how to achieve a durable peace between our two nations,” Golden said in a statement.

An effort by Senate Democrats to force an end to the war in Iran was again blocked by Republicans on Wednesday, the fourth such failed attempt mounted by Senate Democrats since the war began in late February.

The measure failed by a vote of 52-47, with all Democrats except Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) voting for a procedural motion on the war powers resolution, and all Republicans except Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) voting against it. Sen. Jim Justice (R-WV) was not present for the vote.

Nevertheless, Democrats intend to continue their efforts. They have nine such resolutions that have been filed, and top Senate Democrats said this week they intend to continue forcing such votes weekly, in the hopes that more Republicans will change their votes as the war drags on.

Some Republicans have begun to express hesitation about the war, and top members of the caucus have said they hope it comes to an end soon. But thus far most have not been willing to openly break with President Donald Trump on the effort.

Separately, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) plans to call up a vote later on Wednesday on a pair of measures to block sales of bombs and bulldozers to Israel, which Sanders has also framed as referenda on the war in Iran. Twenty-seven Democrats have previously voted for such resolutions, and supporters of the effort expect that number to increase this time.

But at least one lawmaker, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), who introduced a war powers resolution on Iran this week, for future consideration, said that she views the two issues differently.

“I think of them very differently,” Gillibrand told Jewish Insider during a virtual press conference on Wednesday. “I oppose the war in Iran, but I do not believe we should leave an ally who is being attacked without support,” she said, referring to Israel.

Rep. Greg Landsman (D-OH), one of the few House Democrats who has supported strikes on Iran and opposed a war powers resolution to bring it to an end earlier this month, now says he wants to see the war wrapped up, and will vote for an upcoming resolution to end the conflict.

“It’s time to finish the operation in Iran. It’s time to be done,” Landsman said in a statement on Friday. “No expansion of the original operation. No ground troops.”

Landsman’s statement comes in advance of an anticipated vote on another war powers resolution to end the conflict next week, led by Rep. Greg Meeks (D-NY). Landsman said he plans to vote for the war powers resolution, and urged colleagues to do the same. 

Reps. Henry Cuellar (D-TX), Jared Golden (D-ME) and Juan Vargas (D-CA) were the only other Democrats to vote against the previous war powers resolution earlier this month.

“The fact is, in three weeks, we have destroyed nearly all of the regime’s missile and drone launch capacity and eliminated their ability, for now, to produce ballistic missiles and drones,” Landsman said. “This means the objective to destroy the weapons shield built to protect their underground nuclear enrichment facilities has been achieved.”

“The cost of inaction was far too high to tolerate. But now it’s time to be done,” he continued, adding that U.S. military officials have successfully executed their mission, so it is “now it is time for the administration to end the operation before we become entangled in a conflict with no strategic logic.”

The Ohio congressman criticized the Trump administration for its communication around the war, while praising military officials for how they have conducted the U.S. operations.

Cuellar, Golden and Vargas did not comment on how they plan to vote on the next war powers resolution. Assuming full attendance, just three other lawmakers who opposed the previous war powers resolution would need to flip to allow the next one to pass.

Landsman, Cuellar, Golden and three other moderate House Democrats are also co-sponsoring an alternative war powers resolution that would limit the duration of the war to 30 days from its inception, which also should be eligible for a vote in the House soon.

That 30-day deadline from the war’s beginning — March 30 — is quickly approaching, raising the likelihood that other Democrats like Cuellar and Golden might support ending the war, based on the timeline they laid out.

The Senate is set to hold another round of votes on blocking U.S. arms transfers to Israel, as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) filed three new joint resolutions of disapproval against $658.8 million in sales of 500- and 1,000-pound bombs to Israel and “defense articles” for 250-pound bombs.

“Given the horrific destruction that Israel’s extremist government has wrought on Gaza, Iran and Lebanon, the last thing in the world that American taxpayers need to do right now is to provide 22,000 new bombs to the Netanyahu government,” Sanders said. “No more weapons to support an illegal war.”

The effort is being co-sponsored by Sens. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and Peter Welch (D-VT).

Sanders emphasized that the administration had sidestepped normal congressional review procedures using emergency authorities in advancing the arms sales earlier this month.

Sanders and other progressive Democrats have forced votes on similar efforts to block arms sales to Israel on three previous occasions since the war in Gaza began, with a majority of the Democratic caucus — 27 lawmakers — voting to block at least one arms sale in July of last year, a significant jump in support from similar efforts in November 2024 and April 2025.

Israel’s standing among Democrats has worsened since last July, with even some Democrats who supported continued arms sales at that time blaming Israel for dragging the U.S. into the war in Iran. Polls show registered voters now see Israel more negatively than positively.

Some senators have argued the U.S. should have threatened to cut off military support to prevent an Israeli attack on Iran.

Van Hollen, Merkley and Welch, in statements, all framed the bomb sales as proxy votes on the war in Iran, and a vote to block the sales as a step toward ending the war. Senate Democrats have voted nearly unanimously as recently as yesterday to bring an immediate end to the war in Iran.

“With the bombs already provided to Israel by American taxpayers, Israeli forces are unleashing a campaign of total war in Iran with the clear and deliberate intention to eviscerate Iran’s economy and society,” Welch said in a statement. “I support these joint resolutions to make sure that we do not send another 20,000 bombs to Israel that will result in further destruction in Iran and Lebanon. We must end this war, and we must not send these bombs.”

On the other hand, some Democrats who had voted in favor of previous arms sales flipped in the July 2025 vote to express frustration with the ongoing war and humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

With the war in Gaza now in a ceasefire, humanitarian aid restored and efforts toward reconstruction slowly starting, that motivation for blocking arms sales may no longer be salient for some Democrats.

The Senate voted largely along party lines on Wednesday night to reject a procedural motion on an effort aiming to bring the U.S. operations in Iran to an immediate halt for the second time this month.

The war powers resolution, led by Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ), is part of an effort by a group of Senate Democrats to disrupt and slow down business on the Senate floor in protest of the war in Iran, which was launched without congressional authorization, and to seek public testimony by Cabinet officials about the conflict. 

In the minority, Democrats have limited ability to effect change or disrupt the war effort, but war powers resolutions are subject to special Senate procedures allowing them to be called up at a time of their sponsors’ choosing, after a short waiting period.

The Senate voted the resolution down 53-47, with Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) breaking with Democrats to support the war effort and Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) breaking with Republicans to oppose it, as they both did the previous time.

The Democrats involved are planning to continue such efforts and already have five additional war powers resolutions introduced that could be called up, though Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) told Jewish Insider on Tuesday he was only expecting one vote this week.

“We made a determination back at the very end of February when this war started, that we were not going to let [President Donald Trump] do this without a fight … to not allow business as usual, to not allow them to spend billions of dollars of our treasure and the blood of our American citizens without so much as an adequate debate or hearing oversight or accountability whatsoever,” Booker said at an event with the advocacy group VoteVets prior to the vote.

Booker also argued on the Senate floor that the situation in the Middle East has only worsened since the chamber voted on the previous war powers resolution.

Though Republicans, with the exception of Paul, are continuing to stick together in support of the operation, it’s unclear whether that will last as the war continues or if the U.S. deploys ground troops in Iran.

A handful of Republicans from the populist wing of the GOP have suggested that the U.S. operation in Iran has largely met its goals and can wrap up promptly.

“We are going to keep forcing them again and again and again — as much as they hate it — to have to vote on this, until we finally get in public the answers that Americans deserve,” Kaine said at an event prior to the vote.

Kaine also said that the Democratic lawmakers aim to leverage the upcoming National Defense Authorization Act appropriations process, potential GOP reconciliation bill and anticipated supplemental funding request to force votes on the war and compel testimony by administration officials.

“We are committed to using every last one to demonstrate the foolishness of this war, the illegality the war, with the thought that the more we do it, the more the American public agrees with us, the more they’re gonna talk to their members of Congress and senators, and we can start pulling some more votes away,” he said.

Sen. Jim Risch (R-ID), the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said that passing the resolution would endanger American servicemembers and the country.

“What they’re asking us to do is to put our tail between our legs and leave the battlefield and surrender the battlefield to the Iranians. We’re not going to do that,” Risch said on the Senate floor. “Democrats are attempting to stop the administration from keeping Americans safe through these defensive actions against Iran. … The resolution would put them further in danger if it passed.”

In a surprise vote on Thursday afternoon that baffled some observers in Washington, 53 House Democrats voted against a resolution “reaffirming Iran remains the largest state sponsor of terrorism.” For some, their opposition traces to a desire not to give President Donald Trump rhetorical, or potentially legal, justification for continuing the Iran war, lawmakers said.

The resolution passed by a vote of 372-53, with two members voting “present.” 

Most of the lawmakers voting against the resolution — like Reps. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), Joaquin Castro (D-TX), Ilhan Omar (D-MN), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) —  are progressives, many of them frequent critics of Israel.

But a handful of others who ended up voting against the resolution are relative moderates who have taken more hawkish stances on Iran, such as Reps. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL), Rob Menendez (D-NJ) and Steve Cohen (D-TN), who also voted against the resolution. 

Many of the more moderate lawmakers who voted against the resolution are facing either competitive reelection races with challengers from their left or, in Krishnamoorthi’s case, running for higher office.

Newly elected Rep. Christian Menefee (D-TX), who had thus far not encountered any House votes on Middle East policy and faces Rep. Al Green (D-TX) in a member-on-member primary runoff, also voted no, as did Green.

Rep. Robert Garcia (D-CA), a Democratic rising star who is the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, told Jewish Insider he felt the legislation was meant to provide additional support for the war.

“Right now there’s an active situation that I oppose,” Garcia said. “That [resolution is] just meant to provide more pressure on that action. I think that right now, it’s a purely political stunt, and something that I won’t agree with.”

Another House Democrat, who asked to remain anonymous, explained that they were concerned about two clauses in the legislation, which they said could provide Trump with legal justifications for continuing the war.

One clause notes that “Tehran continues to harbor a network of senior al-Qaeda leaders, providing them with sanctuary space to fundraise in support of its fighters.” Given that the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force that approved the Afghanistan war includes language allowing the use of military power against any nations that harbored the organizations or individuals responsible for planning, carrying or aiding in the 9/11 attacks, the Democrat said that Trump could use the language “as a legal justification” for the war.

The other clause describes Iran as a “direct and persistent threat to the United States,” which the Democrat said could trigger the president’s self-defense authorities under Article II of the Constitution.

“Iran is a leading state sponsor of terrorism led by a regime that represses its own people and poses real dangers we must confront. We must ensure it never obtains a nuclear weapon. I will continue to support targeted efforts to counter the threats posed by Iran, but I voted against a separate resolution on Iran that President Trump may soon use to politically justify this war,” Krishnamoorthi said.

“Iran is obviously a state sponsor of terrorism. There’s no debate on that. The issue is that Republicans are using this to claim that Iran is harboring Al Qaeda (sound familiar?) and is a direct and persistent threat to the U.S. so they can legally justify this reckless war,” Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-CA) said on X.

Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ), a progressive Israel critic who voted against the resolution, called it a “political messaging bill” designed to take attention away from the war powers resolution that failed in the House shortly after.

Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA), the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee — who supported the resolution — said in a statement, “I agree with the principal assertion of this resolution that Iran is a bad actor. Iran’s malign and destabilizing actions in the region and treatment of its own citizens should be denounced. I have never contested this. What I do contest is that going to war is the reasonable response to this assertion. I support this resolution. I do not support the president’s war of choice with Iran.”

A day after Republican senators blocked a vote to end the U.S.-Israeli operations in Iran, the House voted 219-212 to defeat a similar war powers resolution, with four Democrats breaking with their party to oppose an immediate end to the war, and two Republicans voting with other Democrats to oppose military action.

Reps. Greg Landsman (D-OH), Jared Golden (D-ME), Henry Cuellar (D-TX) and Juan Vargas (D-CA) were ultimately the only Democrats to vote against the resolution, which was led by Reps. Ro Khanna (D-CA) and Thomas Massie (R-KY). Reps. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) and Jared Moskowitz (D-FL), who said they would oppose the resolution before the war began, ultimately voted in favor.

On the Republican side, Massie and Rep. Warren Davidson (R-OH), both of whom have isolationist leanings, were the only members of the GOP to support the resolution.

Moskowitz had argued before the war that voting preemptively on the resolution would remove U.S. leverage in negotiations, but argued that the situation has since changed and that the U.S. is now in a full-scale war.

“I didn’t flip at all,” Moskowitz told Jewish Insider. “Circumstances have changed since my first statement two weeks ago.”

In a statement, he condemned Iran and its regime, saying he is “happy that [Ayatollah Ali Khamenei] is no longer able to reign terror on his country,” but added, “Regardless of how one feels about this war, or this President, Congress’s constitutional role in any declaration of war is a completely separate issue,” expressing concern at the erosion of congressional war powers over the past year. 

“We must reestablish our Article I authority which grants Congress all legislative powers,” Moskowitz said, adding that he did not believe the resolution would prevent continued efforts to protect U.S. bases and personnel nor intelligence sharing with allies.

Gottheimer emphasized in a statement that the U.S. “simply can’t afford to get this wrong — we must win and crush” the Iranian regime’s military capabilities, emphasizing that he is not, in principle, opposed to military action against Iran and that the regime “deserves the punishment they’re receiving.

“With the defeat of the War Powers Resolution in the Senate, the vote in the House today shifted from an unacceptable call that could put our troops in harm’s way to a clear call for this Administration to articulate the goals for the mission, the end game, and their plan to avoid a protracted conflict,” Gottheimer continued — suggesting that he voted for the resolution because it was, in essence, symbolic given that it did not pass the Senate.

“Unlike some of my colleagues who are opposed to combatting the Iranian regime, the world’s leading state sponsor of terror, I’m supporting this resolution to send a clear message to the Administration: the American people deserve a coherent explanation of what precipitated this war, what success looks like, and how we will know when the mission has been achieved,” he continued, criticizing “shifting justifications and objectives” from the administration. “I’m not opposed to taking action against Iran. I believe that steps to address the persistent threats are merited and necessary to protect our broader national security interests.”

He pledged to make sure the military has sufficient resources, signaling that he may support supplemental funding for the mission if and when requested.

The beginning of combat operations, the loss of some American soldiers and the administration’s inconsistent messaging and strategy — as well as an aggressive push from Democratic leadership — likely helped Democrats close ranks on the war powers resolution.

After the vote, Rep. Greg Meeks (D-NY), the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said that he would call up another war powers resolution 60 days from the start of the war, the limit under which an administration can conduct military operations without congressional authorization under the War Powers Act.

“Members who voted against today’s WPR on the assumption that Trump’s war will be swift or limited will not have that excuse once we’ve entered the third month of open-ended hostilities,” Meeks said.

Like Moskowitz and Gottheimer, a handful of other Democrats who have offered a degree of support for the U.S. operations in Iran ultimately voted for the resolution. Some have pointed to concerns about constitutional process and the administration’s failure to seek congressional approval for the war, rather than opposition to the war in general.

“I will vote for the war powers resolution because I cannot support unchecked authority for the administration to engage, indefinitely, in an already deadly war with unknown size and scope, especially considering Secretary [of Defense Pete] Hegseth’s suggestion that he is willing to” use ground troops in the operation, Rep. Tom Suozzi (D-NY), a moderate House Democrat, said.

At the same time, Suozzi said that “Iran is weaker and the regime’s leadership has been decimated — those are good things. If these operations make the region more secure and America safer, those would also be good things.” He added that the war powers resolution would not prevent Congress from authorizing the use of force in Iran “if necessary and properly presented to Congress.”

Davidson, one of the two Republicans who voted for the resolution. said on the House floor on Wednesday that operations against Iran were just, and potentially necessary, but unconstitutional.

“For some this debate will be about whether we should even be fighting in Iran. For me, the debate is more fundamental: is the president of the United States, regardless of the person holding the office, empowered to do whatever he wants?” Davidson said. “That’s not what our Constitution says. … I rise in support of this war powers resolution today because the moral hazard posed by a government no longer constrained by our Constitution is a grave threat.”

Davidson argued that his Republican colleagues were ignoring the clear definition of what constitutes a war, and repudiating Trump’s campaign promises.

The House resolution, unlike the Senate version, included no specific protections to allow for continued U.S. intelligence sharing with Israel and other allies, and defensive operations to protect allies like Israel and U.S. forces.

Earlier this week, Gottheimer, Landsman, Suozzi, Cuellar, Golden and Reps. Jimmy Panetta (D-CA), Jim Costa (D-CA), Vicente Gonzalez (D-TX) and Adam Gray (D-CA) had introduced an alternative resolution that would give the administration 30 days from the start of the war to wind down operations in Iran, rather than demanding an immediate halt, while banning any ground operations.

Gottheimer said in his statement he plans to call up his resolution during the week of March 23, but he hopes that, “Between now and then, I hope either the conflict has reached its objectives or the Administration has made a strong case to Congress and the American people for why this mission must continue.”

But most ultimately voted for the Massie-Khanna resolution.

Suozzi said that the Gottheimer resolution “would prevent a reckless and potentially unsafe removal of our forces and allow us to continue to protect American troops and our allies in the region during this perilous time,” a seeming indictment of the war powers resolution he nevertheless supported.

Top lawmakers supporting the war powers resolution have largely failed to articulate what the implications of immediately ending operations would be, with some claiming, in spite of the resolution’s language, that U.S. forces would be allowed to finish their mission and wind down.

Some former Democratic officials argued that Gottheimer’s alternative effort would be a more prudent path, with U.S. forces and embassies under fire from Iran, and that any realistic and safe withdrawal would take time. One also argued that the resolution, if brought to a vote, might pick up enough Republican support to pass.

Daniel Silverberg, a former advisor to Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD), emphasized that a similar effort to cut off the U.S.’ Libya operations led by “one of the most ardent anti-war activists in the House,” then-Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), included a 15-day wind-down provision.

“The Massie-Khanna resolution lacks it. The notion that Democrats would not, at a minimum, support that amendment to allow for a responsible withdrawal of forces is problematic from a national security perspective and from a messaging perspective,” Silverberg said.

Jeremy Bash, a former chief of staff at the Department of Defense and Central Intelligence Agency under the Obama administration, told JI that the Khanna-Massie resolution “requires [a] very strange outcome” that would be “dangerous for our troops” and that it was not “credible” because it lacked any buffer period.

House Democratic leaders said in a joint statement on Thursday that they plan to force a vote “as soon as Congress reconvenes next week” on a resolution blocking military action against Iran without congressional authorization.

The statement, signed by House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), Minority Whip Katherine Clark (D-MA) and Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar (D-CA), as well as Reps. Greg Meeks (D-NY), Jim Himes (D-CT), Adam Smith (D-WA) and Ro Khanna (D-CA), all of whom hold committee leadership roles, argues that military action against Iran without authorization would be unconstitutional. The statement also serves as an apparent repudiation of claims by some progressives that Democratic leaders were privately maneuvering to block a vote on the resolution, fearing a significant number of party defections.

“The Iranian regime is brutal and destabilizing, seen most recently in the killing of thousands of protestors,” the Democratic officials said. “However, undertaking a war of choice in the Middle East, without a full understanding of all the attendant risks to our servicemembers and to escalation, is reckless.”

“We maintain that any such action would be unconstitutional without consultation with and authorization from Congress,” they continued.

At least one Republican, other than the resolution’s cosponsor Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), appears likely to support the war powers resolution. Rep. Warren Davidson (R-OH), a Republican with isolationist foreign policy leanings, said he would vote in favor of the resolution unless he receives a classified briefing on the “mission”  in Iran next week that provides “new information.”

“War requires congressional authorization. There are actions short of war, but no case has been made,” Davidson said.

Three Democrats — Reps. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ), Jared Moskowitz (D-FL) and Greg Landsman (D-OH) — have indicated they will oppose the resolution. Some other defections are likely.

One issue that could drive particular concern for pro-Israel Democrats is that the legislation does not include specific language allowing for continued intelligence-sharing and defensive operations and aid to protect Israel from Iranian attack, which is included in similar Senate legislation.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said in a Senate floor speech on Thursday, two days after receiving a classified briefing from Cabinet officials — that the administration still has yet to lay out its goals and plans for Iran.

“The issues we discussed in our classified briefing were very serious and the American people deserve to hear it directly from the president and his administration,” Schumer said.

Schumer has signed on as a cosponsor of the Senate war powers legislation.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD), who was also briefed, said Thursday that any action against Iran should be decisive enough to bring down the regime.

“In my view, if you’re going to do something there, you better well make it about getting new leadership and regime change,” Thune said.

An effort to expel Israel from the leading global organization for social workers failed on Wednesday in a closed-door Zoom meeting. A second vote, on suspending Israel, also failed.

The International Federation of Social Workers, which counts social work organizations from 141 countries as members, was considering the measure against Israel after some European members complained that Israeli social workers had served in combat roles during Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza. IFSW formally censured Israel last year.

Jewish social workers in the U.S. and Canada mounted a brief advocacy campaign against the measure, authoring a petition signed by 12,000 people urging the U.S.-based National Association of Social Workers and the Canadian Association of Social Workers to vote against the measure. NASW released a public statement a day before the vote, saying that the expulsion effort violates “the profession’s core values of unity, dialogue and compassion.” 

Inbal Hermoni, the chair of the Israeli Union of Social Workers, said last week that kicking Israel out of the IFSW — whose members also include Russia, China and Iran — would not advance peace in the Middle East. 

The leadership of the IFSW did not publicly comment on the results of Wednesday’s vote. 34 countries voted against expulsion, with 16 voting in favor. A majority of voting members supported suspending Israel — 27 voted to suspend Israel, and 23 voted against it — but the measure would have needed 75% of votes to pass. 

NASW cheered the vote in a statement on Wednesday.

“Our position reflects our belief that professional engagement, ethical accountability and sustained dialogue are more effective than expulsion in advancing peace, justice and human rights,” NASW said.

Guila Franklin Siegel, the chief operating officer at the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Washington, called the vote “a victory for inclusion over discrimination.” 

“While it is disappointing that the IFSW even considered such exclusionary motions, we are hopeful that this closes the door on any effort to isolate Israeli social workers initiated by international bodies that should be supporting and lifting them,” said Siegel,  who had been working behind the scenes with Jewish social workers to rally opposition to the measure.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) said that she voted, for the first time, for resolutions blocking U.S. arms sales to Israel this week to send a message to the Israeli government of disapproval for the humanitarian situation in Gaza, even as she acknowledged that the vote might not make much of an impact.

“I just think it’s really important for people to speak out when they can, even if it’s on a vote that isn’t probably going to make all the difference right now. And it doesn’t mean I’m going to be hard-stop against aid for Israel in the future,” Klobuchar told Punchbowl News.

“At some point, you’ve got to seek change. And I think this is one way you can do it,” she continued. “I have supported Israel’s right to defend itself, I always will. But they aren’t changing.”

She said that she’d tried to communicate her disapproval of the humanitarian situation in Gaza to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during his recent visit to Washington, D.C. but said it “didn’t work very well when I said it.”

Klobuchar said in a Senate floor speech several days before the votes that she attended the meeting with Netanyahu “for one reason: in my capacity as No. 3 in the Democratic leadership, and that was to raise the issue of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.”

 “I say to my colleagues you can support the people of Israel. You can be horrified and condemn, as all of us did, the terrorist attack. But we cannot continue to allow people to starve,” Klobuchar said. “Lives are being lost on a daily basis, kids, innocents, and the government of Israel must change course.”

She said that U.S. policy must focus on returning to a ceasefire, increasing humanitarian aid, freeing the hostages and security a two-state solution.

The Minnesota Democrat, a moderate, has historically been a quiet but reliable supporter of Israel. She’s also the No. 3 Senate Democrat, seen as a potential successor to Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY).

Of the 11 members of Democratic leadership, seven voted for the resolutions on Wednesday.

Klobuchar is running for the No. 2 Senate Democratic leadership slot, competing against Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI), a consistent supporter of prior efforts to halt weapons sales, and Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA), who, like Klobuchar, flipped her vote to support the Sanders resolutions after previously opposing them.

The House of Representatives on Thursday rejected, in a 422-6 vote, a bid by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) to block the $500 million in cooperative missile-defense funding the U.S. provides annually to Israel.

Greene’s amendment sought to strip the funding, provided annually under the terms of the U.S.-Israel memorandum of understanding, from the House’s 2026 Defense funding bill. Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), had introduced a similar amendment.

Greene, Omar and Reps. Al Green (D-TX), Summer Lee (D-PA), Thomas Massie (R-KY) and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) voted for the aid cutoff.

The House also defeated Greene-led amendments that would have cut military funding for Jordan by a 400-30 vote, for Ukraine by a 353-76 vote and for Taiwan by a 421-6 vote. Only Republicans voted for each of those amendments.

Legislators also rejected, by a 355-76 vote, an amendment by Rep. Greg Steube (R-FL) to cut funding for the Lebanese Armed Forces. All of the votes in favor came from Republicans.

Steube has long opposed funding for the LAF, arguing that it is complicit in Hezbollah’s actions against Israel and infiltrated by Hezbollah members and sympathizers.

Greene argued on the House floor that the Israel funding is “money we don’t have” and that Israel is “very capable of defending themselves.”

Referring repeatedly to the Jewish state as “nuclear-armed Israel,” Greene suggested that Israel’s undeclared nuclear capabilities should deter any threats — even though that has not been the case in the past. Israel has long maintained a policy of nuclear ambiguity, neither confirming nor denying its possession of a nuclear arsenal.

She also highlighted the U.S.’ extensive use of its own ballistic missile interceptors to defend Israel during the recent Iran-Israel war.

Greene noted Israel’s bombing this week of a church in Gaza, for which the Israeli government apologized, calling it a mistake, and said that “an entire population is being wiped out as they continue their aggressive war in Gaza.”

The funding in question supports programs including Iron Dome, Arrow and David’s Sling that are jointly developed by Israel and the United States. The systems, designed to intercept threats like missiles and drones, do not have offensive applications.

Reps. Ken Calvert (R-CA) and Betty McCollum (D-MN), the chair and ranking member of the House Appropriations Committee’s Defense Subcommittee, both spoke on the House floor against Greene’s amendment, as did Rep. Randy Fine (R-FL).

Calvert said that Israel’s success in intercepting ongoing attacks has come partly as a result of the U.S. missile-defense funding provided in past years. He highlighted that the funding supports the U.S.’ defense industrial base, funding production of the systems in both the U.S. and Israel and joint technological development.

McCollum is a vocal longtime critic of Israeli policy toward the Palestinians and the Israeli military operations in Gaza.

“To be clear, I have disagreements with Prime Minister Netanyahu’s government,” McCollum said, describing the war in Gaza as a “tragedy.” “But the funding in this bill does not support offensive weapons for Israel. … This bill provides for defensive measures only.”

McCollum said that everyone in the region deserves safety and that “Israeli children deserve to go to bed at night knowing that missiles from Yemen, Iran or from the Houthis or anywhere else in the region will not rain down on them.”

Fine highlighted that there is a significant American population in Israel under threat from air attacks. He said the co-development of missile-defense programs with Israel helps support America’s own air defense, including President Donald Trump’s Golden Dome proposal for a national air-defense infrastructure.

Addressing Greene’s comments, he noted that America has nuclear weapons, but that hasn’t deterred some adversaries from trying to attack it.

“When we oppose this amendment, when we vote it down, we are not only standing with Israel, we are standing with the best interests of the United States,” Fine said.

The Senate voted down Sen. Tim Kaine’s (D-VA) war powers resolution that would have blocked additional U.S. military action against Iran on Friday evening, with nearly all Democrats voting in favor of the resolution, and almost all Republicans voting against it.

The resolution failed, 53-47, with Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) being the only Republican to vote in favor and Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) being the only Democrat to vote against. 

Kaine said in an address prior to the vote that while he acknowledged the need for U.S. military engagement in certain instances, any offensive actions required the approval of the legislative branch.

 “The United States needs to defend itself and it needs to work with allies to help them defend themselves,” Kaine said. “But our troops, our sons and daughters, deserve to have wise civilian leadership that only make the decision to send them into war on the basis of careful consideration and a debate before the entire public.”

The Virginia senator, who has long been a champion of enforcing Congressional war powers, argued the president does not have the authority “to go on offense against another nation or an entity like a terrorist group.”

In response, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), one of the most vocal supporters of the strikes in the Senate, said that requiring congressional approval would be a “disaster for the country” and upend the military command structure.

“Since the founding of this country, it’s been understood that the commander in chief can act, as the commander in chief, to protect our nation from threats — that he is in charge of the military. He’s the civilian in charge of the military, and it’s his decision to use military force,” Graham said. He noted that Congress has only declared war five times but engaged in hundreds of military actions, and said Congress can cut off funding for military operations if it does not agree with the executive.

“Just think of the chaos that would ensue in this country if there were not one commander in chief, but 535,” Graham reiterated, adding that the reaction from Congress to the strikes and conflicting intelligence about their efficacy shows that Congress would not be able to act decisively if consulted. 

He said it would not be practical for the administration to have to wait for Congress to act in response to a future nuclear facility or threat to U.S. forces, “and that’s not what the founders meant.”

Several Senate Republicans who backed a similar resolution in 2020 following the U.S. strike that killed Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Gen. Qassem Soleimani voted, this time, against the resolution. That list included Sen. Todd Young (R-IN), Bill Cassidy (R-LA), Susan Collins (R-ME), Mike Lee (R-UT) and Jerry Moran (R-KS).

Collins noted in her statement that Iran had “threatened to attack Americans on our own soil and around the world” after Israel launched its operation to take out its nuclear program. She also said she supported the strikes and the subsequent ceasefire, both of which made it “the wrong time to consider this resolution and to risk inadvertently sending a message to Iran that the President cannot swiftly defend Americans at home and abroad.”

“I continue to believe that Congress has an important responsibility to authorize the sustained use of military force. That is not the situation we are facing now,” Collins said. “The president has the authority to defend our nation and our troops around the world against the threat of attack.” 

Lee said that determinations around war powers are “heavily fact-dependent.”

“We got a classified briefing yesterday. The totality of the circumstances that they outlined, including the finality of the action they’d taken — there’s no ongoing operations there,” Lee said.

Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-NV), one of the Senate’s most vocal pro-Israel Democrats, said in a statement that she hopes the strikes are successful in the long-term, that Iran must be prevented from obtaining nuclear weapons, that the U.S. must defend its personnel and that she would “continue to back Israel should it need to respond to a break in the agreement.”

“At the same time, the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war and authorize any offensive attacks on other sovereign nations,” Rosen said. “The decision to go to war and put our troops in harm’s way is one that cannot be made lightly, and must be made by Congress, which is why I voted today to advance the War Powers Resolution.”

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO), who has advocated for a more restrained approach to U.S. foreign policy, dismissed arguments that the War Powers Act was applicable to the strikes ordered by Trump, which he called “an Article II matter.”

“I think, probably, the War Powers Act is unconstitutional. Some parts of the War Powers Act are kind of closer questions, but I think this is actually not very hard. I mean, if a president, any president of any party, cannot order one-off, limited military strikes without the approval of Congress, why do we have Article II?” Hawley asked.

“Go back and read the debates, and exactly what the framers did not want was foreign policy by committee, so I think this is not a close question. You can be opposed to the strikes and still be like, ‘Wow, this is not a good idea, this resolution,’” he told JI, adding that Trump was “100%” acting within his constitutional authority.