A Republican Senator Is Drafting a Bill to Force Congress to Vote on the Iran War

What Happened

Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, a Republican, is drafting a formal Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) for Operation Epic Fury — the ongoing U.S. and Israeli military campaign against Iran that began on February 28, 2026. The New York Times and Bloomberg Government both reported the development on Thursday, March 26, citing a confirmation from Murkowski's spokesman and her own statements to reporters.

The legislation has not yet been introduced. Murkowski said she is working with a group of senators on the measure, though she did not name them. Her stated goal is not to halt the war but to set an end goal and put legal parameters around a conflict that she described as operating entirely outside congressional oversight.

"We should have a better handle on where we're going with this," Murkowski told the New York Times in a recent interview. She added: "This president came into office saying he was going to be the peace president. How many times has he said, 'We don't like these long wars, these never-ending wars?' People are asking me, 'Is that what we're moving into?' And I can't honestly tell them the answer, because I don't know that answer."

Bloomberg Government, which first reported the Murkowski AUMF effort, described her as a "key swing vote" who said the Trump administration in closed-door briefings has refused to give senators answers on the scope, purpose, and end goal of operations in Iran.

The Constitutional Gap

The United States Constitution gives Congress — not the president — the power to declare war. Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution grants Congress this authority, which it has exercised formally on 11 occasions, most recently in December 1941 during World War II.

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 was passed to prevent presidents from committing U.S. forces to sustained combat without congressional approval. It requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying forces into hostilities, and limits unauthorized military engagements to 60 days plus a 30-day withdrawal period. The Trump administration notified Congress of the February 28 strikes but has not sought an AUMF and has asserted it does not need one.

The Iran war — which the Trump administration branded "Operation Epic Fury" — has no AUMF. No authorization for the use of military force against Iran has been passed by either chamber of Congress. The administration has not publicly specified what legal authority it is relying on, though past administrations have cited broad Article II executive powers and older AUMFs that legal scholars say are inapplicable to Iran.

Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky has said on multiple occasions that the war is unconstitutional on its face. "Only Congress can declare war. That's not my opinion. That's Article 1 of the Constitution," Paul said after the first failed war powers vote, according to Time magazine's reporting on March 25, 2026.

Three Failed Votes, One Defector

Democrats have made three separate attempts in the Senate to invoke the War Powers Resolution and compel the president to withdraw U.S. forces from hostilities against Iran absent congressional authorization. All three failed along broadly party-line votes.

The most recent vote, reported by the New York Times on March 24, 2026, came in at 53 to 47 — with 53 senators (overwhelmingly Republican) voting to block the measure. The resolution, introduced by Democratic Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut, would have directed "the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities within or against the Islamic Republic of Iran that have not been authorized by Congress," according to Time magazine's reporting.

Two senators crossed party lines. Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania was the only Democrat to vote against advancing the war powers measure, breaking with his party. Fetterman had previously said he believed the Iran campaign was "very effective" and that it was "moving towards the kind of appropriate outcome," according to Time's reporting of his March 12 statement.

Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky was the only Republican to vote in favor of the war powers resolution — the lone voice from his party calling for congressional authorization. Paul has been a consistent critic of the war since its start, and said on the Senate floor that Americans have been "robbed" of a public debate.

The Hill reported that the outcome "marks a repeat" of a vote held less than a week earlier, when the Senate voted 53-47 on a similar measure — part of what the outlet described as an ongoing Democratic bid to limit or curtail Trump's military actions.

President Trump, according to Time's reporting, lashed out at Paul in the hours before the vote, telling reporters: "Vote for us, and don't call me great. I'd rather have the vote, than the statement." Trump also appeared to issue a warning to Republicans who break from the party: "We have people that don't stick together, and those people, hopefully, will someday be gone."

Why Murkowski's Move Is Different

Every prior congressional action on the Iran war has been an attempt to stop it — or at minimum, to limit it. Murkowski's proposed AUMF would do the opposite: it would authorize the war, but with conditions attached.

That distinction matters constitutionally and politically. An AUMF passed by Congress would give the war a legal foundation it currently lacks under U.S. law. But it would also, for the first time, require Congress to go on record voting for the war — a politically explosive act that the New York Times noted would be "all but certain to generate a politically charged debate just months before the midterm elections on a war that polls show is unpopular."

The political arithmetic is complicated. Some Republicans who have backed Trump's handling of the war may be reluctant to cast a formal vote authorizing it, because an AUMF vote is permanent and attributable — unlike simply blocking a Democratic procedural challenge. An AUMF that passes becomes law. An AUMF that fails is a repudiation of the war itself.

As of Thursday, Murkowski had not introduced the legislation, and its fate was described as "highly uncertain" by the New York Times. The outlet noted that even Republicans who have staunchly supported the offensive against Iran may be reluctant to vote in favor of going to war, something Congress has not formally done since October 2002, when it authorized the use of military force against Iraq.

Republican Frustration With the White House

Murkowski's AUMF push is the most visible sign of a broader shift in how Republican senators are viewing the war. The New York Times reported on March 25, 2026 that G.O.P. lawmakers who had given Trump broad latitude to wage war with no congressional input were growing frustrated as officials offered little detail about ground troops, cost, or timeline.

According to Bloomberg Government, Murkowski said the Trump administration in closed-door classified briefings "won't give answers on the scope and purpose of operations in Iran." The outlet described her as working on a bill specifically "in order to set an end goal for war" — implying that no such goal has been communicated to Congress even in classified settings.

Politico reported on March 24 that Senate Republicans had "rebuffed a fresh attempt by Democrats to limit President Donald Trump on Iran, despite the worsening military and economic fallout from the nearly month-long war." The framing — "despite the worsening fallout" — captured the growing tension between Republican loyalty to Trump and escalating concerns about where the war is heading.

Paul addressed that tension directly in comments reported by Time: "The congressional leadership, resigned to their own irrelevance, will gladly hand the president the power to initiate war in exchange for plausible deniability."

The Financial Stakes

Part of the congressional unease stems from money. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth confirmed, according to Time's reporting, that the Pentagon had asked the White House to approve a $200 billion funding request to Congress for the Iran war — a figure Hegseth said "could move."

Senator Paul told reporters on the day of the most recent war powers vote: "I'm not for adding more debt. I think adding more [debt] makes us less safe." Paul added that he believed "the war should come to a conclusion as soon as possible." Time reported that the U.S. national debt surpassed the $39 trillion mark last week amid the war discourse, prompting some lawmakers to question the administration's spending priorities.

The $12 billion already spent on the war — cited by Paul as the floor — and the $200 billion Pentagon request represent a significant fiscal commitment that, unlike other major military engagements, has never been put before Congress for approval.

What Happens Next

Murkowski has not announced an introduction date for her AUMF. Its passage would require majority votes in both the Senate and the House, and the signature — or override — of President Trump. Trump would almost certainly veto an AUMF that contained conditions or limits he found unacceptable.

The war itself is approaching the 30-day mark that triggers the War Powers Resolution's 60-day clock — meaning, under the statute as written, the administration would have until late April to either withdraw or obtain congressional authorization before the conflict becomes legally unauthorized under U.S. law. Presidents of both parties have historically asserted the War Powers Resolution is an unconstitutional infringement on executive power, and no court has ever enforced it.

Trump, as of Thursday, extended the Strait of Hormuz deadline to April 6, citing ongoing diplomacy. Whether that pause leads to negotiations — Iran publicly denies talks are happening — or to further escalation will shape the political environment in which any AUMF debate unfolds.

Congress has not declared war or passed a war-specific AUMF since October 10, 2002. That 24-year gap is the backdrop against which Murkowski is now, by her own description, acting out of desperation.