Republicans Are Working Overtime to Keep Their Conference Together as Iran War Drags On

President Donald Trump’s war with Iran is hitting a pivotal stretch on Capitol Hill where lawmakers are set to test both the legal authority behind the conflict and the administration’s ability to secure billions in military funding.

The twin fights, over war powers and an emerging supplemental spending request, are unfolding simultaneously, creating a politically fraught moment with no clear path forward.

House Democrats are forcing a vote on Thursday to restrict Trump’s war powers, while Senate Democrats are teeing up repeated votes on war powers resolutions — at least one per week until May, starting Wednesday.

The Republican margins in both chambers, but especially the narrowly divided House, mean there is little room for error, and a handful of defections could prove decisive as GOP leaders move to support Trump’s efforts.

“I don’t think it’ll pass,” Speaker Mike Johnson told NOTUS. “It shouldn’t.”

Pressure is mounting among Republicans, including some who initially gave the president some leeway to take quick action but are discouraged over the extended timeline. A growing number say they won’t support military action beyond the 60-day mark without congressional approval as required by the 1973 War Powers Act.

Sens. John Curtis, Thom Tillis and Lisa Murkowski are discussing the possibility of a new authorization of the use of military force.

Sen. Rand Paul, who has co-sponsored Democratic-led measures to limit Trump’s war powers in Iran, Venezuela and other conflicts, said he plans to vote with Democrats again to check Trump. Senate Democrats pushing war powers resolutions see more Republicans as gettable eventually, if U.S.-Iran peace talks fail, gas prices and inflation continue to rise and voters raise their voices.

“If they hear from their constituents, that may start to push more votes our way,” Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine said.

Still, most Republican skeptics in the Senate are not expected to break with party leadership on the Democrats’ resolutions, which some dismissed as a political stunt.

“The motivation of the Democrats is to send a message to the American people they don’t support what [Trump] is doing,” Tillis said. “I support what he’s trying to achieve, so I would want a resolution to support it, but we also want to assert the accountability and oversight role.”

Even as the debate over legal authority intensifies, the Trump administration is weighing a request for Iran war funding — a move that is meeting its own resistance.

An emerging administration request of $98 billion — about half of an earlier $200 billion figure — would face rough sailing in Congress, where Republican divisions and a crowded legislative calendar are casting doubts on its viability.

“I think obviously they’re looking at whether they can get the votes on both ends of the building,” Sen. Roger Wicker, the chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said.

In the tightly divided House, it’s unlikely Republicans have the votes on their own. Several have voiced opposition or skepticism, including Rep. Lauren Boebert, who told GOP leaders she is a ‘no’ on all Iran supplementals, while Reps. Warren Davidson and Thomas Massie voted with Democrats to require the White House to seek congressional approval before continuing U.S. military action against Iran.

In the Senate, where any supplemental would need 60 votes to advance, Republicans are not unified either. Majority Leader John Thune said this week that he expected a “scaled-back” proposal but signaled that his conference was far from sold.

“Our members are going to be very interested in what the next steps are,” he said. “That will be an important inflection point if and when the administration submits the request.”

Several Republicans are demanding clarity from the administration before committing their support. Paul was firmly opposed, while Sen. Ron Johnson questioned the need for more spending amid rising deficits and competing priorities.

“First of all, I’d want to see the details,” Johnson said. “Why do we need that much?”

Tillis and others said they needed a clearer explanation of the Trump administration’s objectives and whether the funding would support a prolonged conflict.

“I can’t vote blindly for $200 billion,” Tillis said.

Even if Senate Republicans were to unify, they would still need to win over at least seven Democrats to overcome the filibuster — a steep climb when the war is politically unpopular and driving up gas prices.

Some centrist Democrats have left the door open. The vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Mark Warner, said he hasn’t ruled out supporting a supplemental but expressed concerns about the lack of a clear plan.

“You don’t want to take things off the table, but boy, it’s awful hard to convince me when we don’t have a plan,” Warner said. “And frankly, 45 days into this, I think America is less safe. No regime change, no plan to get the enriched uranium. They still have ballistic missiles and drones.”

GOP leaders are juggling a crowded calendar that’s already abbreviated for midterm campaigning, leaving little room for a supplemental as reconciliation and other priorities compete for floor time.

Sen. John Boozman, a senior Republican appropriator, said one way ahead would be to pair it with a proposed farm-assistance package and wildfire-relief funding.

“There are a lot of things hanging out there,” he said. “You just have to figure out how to get these things done. It also has the ability to attract votes.”

Some Republicans have floated folding the supplemental into a future party-line reconciliation bill, which would allow Republicans to bypass the Senate filibuster. But that path also carries political risks since Democrats, ahead of midterms, plan to attack their opponents for supporting a war that lacks a clear endgame.

“This war is so deeply and widely unpopular, anybody saying I’m going to spend more money on it is going to be vulnerable,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal said. “It’s wasteful spending. It’s a war of choice — really a war of impulse and illusion. There’s no plan or purpose. They’re improvising strategy, and you have no idea how that money is going to be spent.”