Congress Moves to Stop Trump from Attacking Iran.

WASHINGTON — A new effort on Capitol Hill aims to stop Trump from attacking Iran without a vote. This move shows growing opposition as both parties question the trump administration’s actions.

The scene is set in the U.S. Capitol Building, Washington, D.C., Feb. 13, 2026 (REUTERS/Annabelle Gordon), in a story filed Feb. 20 by Patricia Zengerle. Congress might vote soon to limit war decisions.

The urgency comes from the U.S. military’s readiness for war with Iran. Lawmakers pushing for new rules say it’s not just politics. They want to ensure accountability in critical situations.

In the House, a bipartisan effort is underway to force a vote. This will test the limits of the trump administration’s power. Details on this effort are in a war powers resolution update.

In the Senate, a different path is leading to a vote that could require approval for war. The question remains: Can Congress stop Trump in time, or will opposition falter?

More on the Senate vote and the briefing fight can be found in reporting on the war powers measure.

Congress Moves to Stop Trump: Key Takeaways

• Congress is moving to stop Trump from striking Iran without lawmakers’ approval.
• A House vote could be forced soon, driven by bipartisan concern and political opposition.
• The trump administration faces growing demands to share details and justify military steps.
• Lawmakers say war powers limits are about constitutional checks, not party branding.
• Military planning and stalled diplomacy are raising pressure for a quick vote.
• Next week could decide whether Congress can curb unilateral action in Iran.

Congress could vote next week to block a Trump strike on Iran

Lawmakers are moving fast as talk of a U.S. strike on Iran grows louder. The push has also pulled in outside voices, from veterans’ groups to a broader protest movement that wants debate before force.

In the House, Representatives Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie say they will try to force a vote. Their plan, outlined in a war powers resolution update, lands as Washington watches military moves in the region and weighs what comes next.

What lawmakers are voting on and why it matters now

The measure is designed to block President Donald Trump from launching hostilities against Iran without Congress. It is a direct test of how far the White House can go on its own.

The timing is the point. If diplomacy breaks down, decisions could come in hours, not weeks. That urgency has energized political activism on both the left and the right, even among voters who rarely agree on foreign policy.

Reuters reporting: U.S. military prepares for sustained operations if diplomacy fails

Reuters has reported that U.S. military planning now includes the possibility of sustained operations lasting weeks, rather than a single, limited strike. That kind of preparation signals broader risk: more aircraft, longer timelines, and more chances for escalation.

It also raises the stakes for Americans in uniform across the region. In that climate, a resistance movement inside Congress is trying to put lawmakers on the record before any order is given.

How a vote could limit action without lawmakers’ approval

If it passes, the resolution would formally restrict the president’s ability to begin military action against Iran without lawmakers’ approval. It would not eliminate every option, but it would narrow the legal and political lanes for unilateral action.

Backers argue it restores a basic check on the power to wage war. Critics say it could slow response time in a crisis. Either way, the vote would turn a high-stakes debate into a clear test of authority, shaped by political activism and public pressure.

Stop Trump’s efforts revive the war powers debate in Washington

Fresh warnings about Iran have brought an old fight back to Washington. It’s about who decides when the U.S. uses force. For many, it’s not about the party but about the process. They believe the rules should stay the same, no matter who’s in the Oval Office.

Constitutional backdrop: Congress holds the power to send U.S. troops to war

Lawmakers pushing for limits point to the Constitution. It says Congress funds the military and declares war. The president is the commander-in-chief. This balance is why war-powers votes keep coming up when tensions rise.

They also mention the War Powers Act of 1973. It was made to slow down the action by one person. In debates, senators have pointed to past votes on Venezuela as proof the topic won’t go away. This includes a vote on a war powers resolution.

Past attempts that failed despite bipartisan interest

The history is complicated. Even with some Republicans joining Democrats, things can stall. Then, they might die because of party pressure or a veto threat. This leaves the public with mixed messages.

This back-and-forth has shaped campaign talk. Some activists tie war powers to an anti-Trump campaign. Others focus on a simple message: vote out Trump and move on. Despite these efforts, the question of who has the final say remains unanswered.

National security exception, and where lawmakers say the line is

The biggest challenge is in the gray area. What’s a limited strike for national security, and when does it become a bigger conflict that needs a vote? Many accept quick action to protect U.S. forces or stop threats. The debate is how long that window should last before Congress must act.

Recent Senate actions on Venezuela show how fast the line can change. This is true when leaders call actions’ law enforcement’ or ‘counternarcotics’ instead of ‘war’. One account of this back-and-forth is in coverage of a motion to dismiss the. Critics say Iran could face the same treatment, while supporters argue that limits could slow decision-making in crises.

“No more endless wars.”

• Supporters of limits stress congressional consent, clear objectives, and a defined endpoint.
• Opponents stress speed, secrecy, and flexibility when threats shift fast.

The debate remains sharp, with voters told to vote out Trump. But others focus on legal guardrails rather than the ballot box. The question is whether the next fight over Iran will bring a lasting rule, or just another warning shot.

Bipartisan sponsors push new resolutions as party margins stay tight

Lawmakers are facing a major test over war powers. The slim Republican majorities in both chambers are key. They’ve helped block past efforts to stop Trump from acting without a vote.

The fight feels familiar to many voters, like the 2020 presidential election. The question now is whether leaders can bring a measure to the floor. Can it survive the party-line pressure in the trump administration era?

Senate: Tim Kaine and Rand Paul file a resolution to block hostilities without a declaration of war

Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia and Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky filed a resolution. It would block hostilities against Iran unless Congress authorizes them through a declaration of war. Kaine said lawmakers should be accountable to their constituents if they support military action.

He made this point as U.S. military assets moved toward Iran. Kaine said lawmakers who back war should “have the guts to vote for the war.” There’s no timetable yet for when the Senate might take it up, leaving the measure in limbo.

House: Thomas Massie and Ro Khanna plan to force a similar vote

In the House, Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Rep. Ro Khanna of California plan to force a vote. On X, Khanna wrote that “Trump officials say there’s a 90% chance of strikes on Iran. He can’t without Congress,” focusing on authorization.

Supporters see the vote as about guardrails, not party labels. They point to state-level pressure campaigns, including this state resolutions strategy. The House effort also draws on memories of the 2020 presidential election, when debates over executive power and accountability were daily politics.

Why have slim Republican majorities blocked earlier limits on the Trump administration

The roadblocks are mostly about numbers and message discipline. Slim Republican majorities have allowed leadership to bottle up votes. They shape rules and protect the trump administration from binding limits.

• Many Republicans argue Congress should not restrict a president’s national security powers, even in fast-moving crises.
• Critics say major hostilities need explicit authorization. Without it, the Constitution’s checks fade in practice.

This tug-of-war has returned with new urgency. The same margins that blocked earlier measures are now the main hurdle. For advocates trying to stop Trump, the immediate battle is less about speeches. It’s more about whether there are enough votes to move the process forward.

Congress Moves to Stop Trump Conclusion

Congress is close to voting on a measure that could limit Donald Trump’s power to attack Iran without approval. This move comes as U.S. military plans show a possible long war if talks fail. The situation has made politicians on Capitol Hill and elsewhere more opposed.

The core issue is the power to declare war. Those backing the resolutions believe the Constitution gives this power to Congress, not just the President. Trump supporters argue that the President needs freedom to act quickly on national security. They fear limits could make the U.S. less safe.

Three key factors will influence the outcome. The Senate has yet to set a voting date, despite growing pressure. In the House, leaders must decide if Thomas Massie and Ro Khanna can get a vote. With a thin margin between parties, a small change could sway the outcome.