>> Continued From the Previous Page <<
That strategy appears aimed as much at politics as policy, especially as the 2026 election cycle draws closer.
Meanwhile, President Trump has projected confidence that the conflict may soon wind down. In an interview that aired Wednesday, he said the war was “close to over.”
That statement comes as the administration continues enforcing a U.S. military blockade targeting Iranian ports, a move supporters say is designed to pressure Tehran while avoiding a broader ground conflict.
One notable surprise in the vote came from Democrat Sen. John Fetterman, who broke with his party and sided with Republicans in opposing the resolution.
His vote suggests cracks may be forming within Democratic ranks, especially among members hesitant to appear weak on national defense.
Republican Sen. Josh Hawley also weighed in, saying the best outcome would be a swift end to hostilities through diplomacy.
“That would be ideal,” Hawley said.
Still, Hawley declined to say how he would vote if the conflict drags on beyond the current timeline, leaving open the possibility of future movement among some Republicans.
Sen. Rand Paul remained the lone Republican to support the Democrat-backed resolution. It was the fourth time Paul has taken that stance, continuing his long-running push for stricter congressional oversight of military action.
Under federal law, presidents face time limits on military engagements that have not been formally authorized by Congress. Current statutes generally require approval if hostilities continue beyond 60 days.
That deadline has become a growing issue because the current conflict traces back to late February, when U.S. and Israeli strikes first began.
Paul suggested more Republicans may reconsider if the operation continues.
“I think that after 60 days, there may be a few more Republicans [who] join me,” he said.
The White House, however, may have room to maneuver. Existing law allows an additional 30-day extension under certain national security circumstances.
Even so, Democrats say they will keep pressing the matter no matter how many times they lose.
“If we’re unsuccessful, at least we’ll make clear to the American people who owns this war,” said Sen. Tim Kaine, one of the leading advocates of the resolution.
The broader legal fight centers around the War Powers Resolution of 1973, passed during Richard Nixon’s presidency after the Vietnam War. The law was intended to limit executive authority and preserve Congress’s role in decisions involving prolonged military conflict.
While that battle continues, Senate Republicans are also pushing forward on another major front: election security.
Earlier this week, GOP lawmakers advanced the SAVE America Act, setting up what could become one of the most contentious legislative fights of the year.
The Senate voted 51-48 to move the bill forward by approving a motion to proceed, allowing formal debate to begin after the legislation had previously stalled.
Sen. Mike Lee has urged conservatives to keep pressure on lawmakers to ensure final passage.
Supporters say the SAVE America Act would restore confidence in federal elections by implementing stricter safeguards.
Among its key provisions: requiring proof of U.S. citizenship to register for federal elections, tightening voter ID standards, and increasing federal involvement in maintaining voter rolls.
Republicans argue those reforms are common-sense protections meant to ensure only eligible citizens vote and that election systems are properly managed.
With battles now raging over war powers abroad and election integrity at home, the Senate is rapidly becoming ground zero for two of the biggest fights shaping America’s political future.
