Good Lord. Democrats used to be good at performative politics.
Two days ago, Senate Democrats insisted on holding a vote on a bill under the War Powers Act to stop Donald Trump's purportedly "illegal" war. Senator Tim Kaine, who never raised a peep when Barack Obama spent seven months imposing regime change on Moammar Qaddafi without even bothering to follow the WPA, insisted that Trump's identical campaign against Iran had to be checked. Instead, in a humiliating backfire, the Senate tacitly approved the war in a 47-53 vote that sent Kaine's bill to defeat.
In a sane world, that would have led House Democrats to drop the entire idea. To force a halt in military action, both chambers have to pass legislation requiring the president to order US armed forces to stand down. That legislation has to be signed by the president to take effect, but it is also susceptible to a veto, at which point both chambers could need two-thirds votes to override and pass the legislation. The Senate already failed to even get a majority, so the legislative prospects were entirely dead.
For some reason, though, House Democrats planned to force a vote anyway. Fox News reporter Chad Pergram, who's usually better than this, tried to tee it up as a potential way to rescue the WPA action, which I found ... curious:
How is it up to the House? The House can't "end the war" in Iran without the Senate. The House doesn't pass bills on its own. This is nothing more than a performative stunt now. https://t.co/EjItWJLpjT
— Ed Morrissey (@EdMorrissey) March 5, 2026
Nonetheless, Hakeem Jeffries insisted on proceeding with the vote. Even if the Senate had already endorsed the war, Democrats must have thought that a vote against the war in the House would at least give the Left some talking points and an excuse to keep claiming that the war is "illegal." The vote had no other value after Kaine engineered an endorsement of Trump's decision to go to war, except for that narrow performative purpose.
Of course, that required the House to actually pass the bill. Instead, Jeffries led his caucus into the same trap that Kaine blithely triggered:
The House on Thursday rejected an effort to advance legislation that would restrict President Trump from using further military action in Iran.
Why it matters: The failed vote amounts to an endorsement of Trump's military campaign in Iran from Congress, which has the constitutional authority to declare war.
Yes, yes indeed, that's exactly what this vote did. It backfired on Jeffries in the same manner it backfired on Kaine. Jeffries assumed that he had enough Republican dissenters to overcome Speaker Mike Johnson's wafer-thin majority, only he wound up losing twice as many of his own caucus in the final vote:
Two Republicans — Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Warren Davison (R-Ohio) — voted with the majority of Democrats in support of the measure.
Four Democrats — Reps. Jared Golden (Maine), Henry Cuellar (Texas) and Greg Landsman (Ohio) and Juan Vargas (Calif.) — voted against it.
As a result, Trump can now accurately claim that both chambers of Congress have endorsed the war with Iran. He and the rest of the administration can stop dancing around the term as a result, too. At times, officials have felt compelled to use euphemisms like "military action" and "kinetic operations," which are accurate but mainly used to avoid crossing legal lines with the word "war." Now Congress has held votes on its status under the War Powers Act and have approved it ... thanks to Democrats who insisted in getting the House and Senate on the record.
Have Democrats learned a lesson? Not quite:
A handful of Democrats are backing a resolution that would give the Trump administration more leeway, directing the president to remove U.S. armed forces from hostilities with Iran within 30 days of the Feb. 28 attack, barring congressional approval.
First off, having held these votes, the War Powers Act allows Trump 60 days before he has to return to Congress for further authorization, not 30. In fact, under some circumstances, that can extend to 90 days. No president has ever considered the WPA constitutional anyway, but no president has frontally challenged it in court. This could force Trump to demand a ruling on the WPA, and this Supreme Court has been rather supportive of the authority of the executive branch (except when it comes to tariffs). The White House can also argue that the AUMF for transnational terrorism passed in 2001 provides all of the legal authority Trump needs to go after the worst state sponsor of Islamist terror.
Besides, there's no sense that a 30-day window would change the outcome in either chamber, especially not the Senate. It would almost certainly become yet another performative demonstration of Democrat impotence. Perhaps Jeffries et al should quit while they're behind.
Editor's Note: For decades, former presidents have been all talk and no action. Now, Donald Trump is eliminating the threat from Iran once and for all.
Help us report the truth about the Trump administration’s decisive actions to keep Americans safe and bring peace to the world. Join Hot Air VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership!
Join the conversation as a VIP Member