Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) told Responsible Statecraft that the United States’ campaign against Iran is “exhibit A” of the limits of American power, as lawmakers continue to spar over Congress’s authority to check military action and whether to cut off funding for the conflict. His remarks come after the Senate rejected his War Powers resolution 47–49 in July, a vote that underscored deep partisan divisions and left unanswered how Congress will constrain the administration.
- Sen. Chris Van Hollen called the U.S. campaign against Iran “exhibit A” of limits on American power, arguing the War Powers Resolution has been weakened.
- Van Hollen led a Senate war-powers resolution that failed 47–49 on July 23; one Republican joined Democrats and one Democrat opposed the measure.
- Van Hollen urged Congress to withhold funding for the campaign, saying appropriations are the clearest lever to stop what he called an illegal war.
- Supporters of the administration argue ongoing strikes are defensive; senators disagreed on whether the War Powers law’s timing rules apply to pauses in hostilities.
- The dispute leaves unresolved whether Congress will find the votes to impose binding limits or instead continue symbolic rebukes.
What Van Hollen said and where he said it
In an interview published by Responsible Statecraft, Van Hollen argued the 1973 War Powers Resolution has been “very damaged” and said the Trump administration had “shredded its provisions,” a trajectory he blamed in part on Senate Republicans who, he said, have become “rubber stamps” for the president’s actions. He described the Iran campaign as an illegal war when it began and continued to call it illegal after subsequent developments. Van Hollen added that Congress ultimately must use the power of the purse and said, “not one penny for this illegal war,” referencing a roughly $70 billion supplemental request he said the administration had submitted. (Van Hollen’s comments were published in a partial transcript of an interview on the History As It Happens podcast.) [Source 3]
What happened on the Senate floor
On July 23, the Senate failed to advance Van Hollen’s war-powers resolution by a 47–49 vote. One Republican, Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, crossed party lines to support advancing the measure; Sen. John Fetterman was the only Democrat to oppose. Several senators who have supported previous war-powers efforts — including Sens. Lisa Murkowski and Rand Paul — did not vote. The resolution would have directed the president to remove U.S. forces from hostilities against Iran unless Congress explicitly authorized continued military action. Van Hollen led the measure on the floor. [Sources 5, 6]
Why the vote matters
- The vote was another in a series of congressional attempts to assert the legislature’s constitutional authority over war. Van Hollen and other Democrats have repeatedly forced votes to pressure Republican senators to either check or endorse the president’s conduct. Critics argue the administration has sidestepped War Powers deadlines by claiming hostilities paused during ceasefires, and then resumed when the White House says military action restarted. [Sources 3, 5]
- Van Hollen and fellow Democrats frame the effort as both a constitutional duty and a practical check: withholding appropriations would be Congress’s clearest legal lever to stop or curtail military operations. Van Hollen said funding the conflict would amount to retroactive approval of what he had called an illegal war. He also noted the pace of munitions expenditure as a logistical and fiscal constraint on sustained operations. [Source 3]
- Opponents on the Senate floor defended the administration’s approach as necessary to confront Iranian threats. Senators urging continued support for the campaign highlighted the risks to deployed service members and framed strikes as defensive responses to a long-running adversary. Those arguments helped maintain a Republican majority against advancing the Van Hollen resolution. [Sources 4, 5]
How other chambers and lawmakers have acted
The Republican-controlled House passed its own war-powers resolution directing a U.S. withdrawal from hostilities, 214–208, with four Republicans joining Democrats. That House measure did not carry over to Senate approval. Earlier in the year, a separate concurrent resolution passed the Senate but was later subject to shifting votes and intense lobbying, demonstrating the fragile coalition-building required to check the president. Senate leaders and Democratic voices have vowed to keep pushing for votes to force accountability. [Sources 1, 5]
Costs, casualties and public opinion cited by lawmakers
Senators raising objections to the administration’s campaign have pointed to financial costs, rising fuel prices, and U.S. service-member casualties as central concerns. Reporting during the period cited 18 U.S. service members killed since the escalation began and linked the conflict to higher domestic energy prices. Polling referenced by some sources showed low public approval for the president’s handling of the Iran situation. Supporters of the campaign, by contrast, argued that sustained pressure and strikes have degraded Iranian capabilities. Each framing informed how senators voted. [Sources 1, 4, 5]
Where the disagreement remains
There are several unresolved legal and political questions the Van Hollen episode highlights.
- Legal interpretation of War Powers. Administration officials have argued ceasefires and pauses affect the 60-day statutory clock in the 1973 law; critics say that approach allows presidents to evade the statute’s limits. Van Hollen and others contend the law has been eroded in practice. Neither side has a definitive, court-set resolution of that dispute in the public record described by the published interviews and votes. [Sources 3, 5]
- Practical tools for Congress. Van Hollen advocates using appropriations to stop the campaign, but such an approach carries political costs and faces procedural hurdles in a closely divided Congress. The House’s passage of a separate resolution shows a pathway for symbolic rebukes, but not necessarily an operational end to the military campaign without broader Senate support. [Sources 3, 5]
- Coalition durability. Votes in the Senate have shifted over time, with a small group of Republican senators occasionally siding with Democrats and later returning to the GOP majority after political pressure. Whether repeated votes will ultimately coalesce into a durable majority to constrain the administration remains uncertain. [Sources 4, 5, 6]
Timeline of key events (as reported)
- February (reported): U.S. military operations against Iran escalated under the Trump administration. [Source 1]
- April 7: The administration described a ceasefire as having paused hostilities for statute timing purposes; later, the White House said military action resumed on July 7. [Source 5]
- June–July: Congress considered multiple war-powers and concurrent resolutions; a concurrent resolution passed the Senate at one point and the House passed a separate measure 214–208. [Sources 1, 5]
- July 23: Senate vote on Van Hollen’s resolution failed 47–49; one Republican joined Democrats to advance the measure, and one Democrat opposed it. [Sources 5, 6]
Implications for U.S. policy and politics
Van Hollen’s characterization of the Iran campaign as an example of the limits of U.S. power connects legal, political and operational strands: if the War Powers statute can be circumvented by executive claims about pauses in hostilities, Congress’s constitutional check is weakened. That, in turn, forces lawmakers to choose between symbolic rebukes and the harder step of denying funding — a choice with major political consequences in a polarized Washington.
For voters and constituents, the immediate effect is that congressional options to end or limit U.S. involvement hinge on narrow Senate math and on whether Republican senators will break with the White House — a dynamic repeated across recent votes. Democrats including Van Hollen say they will continue to press the issue; Senate defeats to date show how difficult it will be to translate those efforts into a binding policy change without broader bipartisan support. [Sources 3, 5]
What remains to be decided
Key open questions include whether Congress will move to deny or condition supplemental funding, whether further votes will peel off additional Republican support, and whether courts will be asked to resolve competing interpretations of the War Powers statute. Van Hollen’s comments frame the next phase as both a legal and political battle over institutional authority and the practical limits of American military action abroad.
“Ultimately, Congress has to use its power of the purse,” Van Hollen said in the interview, summarizing his preferred path for reasserting congressional authority. [Source 3]
