Low public support (67% disapprove) and economic pain are driving Congressional war powers votes. The 60-day deadline and $100 billion supplemental bill expose Republican fissures. Historical precedent suggests the war will undercut long-term US Middle East engagement.
The end of the Iran cease-fire looms this week, and the Trump administration continues to send inconsistent messages on the pathway forward in both word and deed — deploying additional troops to the Middle East on the one hand and, on the other, planning for the possibility of another round of direct talks between the United States and Iran.
US policy on Iran in President Donald Trump’s second term has moved from one of “maximum pressure” to “maximum uncertainty,” with a heavy dose of strategic ambiguity coming from Washington these days. It remains to be seen if the very tenuous cease-fire with Iran holds amid the United States’ use of targeted offensive action to enforce a naval blockade of Iranian ports. The coming days will also show whether this latest evolution of the US’s military campaign will be enough to pressure Tehran into unconditionally reopening the Strait of Hormuz and handing over its nuclear materials or compel the Iranian side to concede on those points at the negotiating table.
Those complicated regional dynamics draw most of the attention internationally. But as they play out, another fast-moving story developing inside the US could have a direct effect on the war’s outcome. The opposition in Congress is attempting to force a war powers vote on the Trump administration’s Iran operation, with an eye toward the 60-day deadline on military action legally imposed on the executive branch; and key defense-spending measures are also on the immediate horizon. All these actions on Capitol Hill could shape the trajectory of how the US moves forward in Iran and the region — and influence Americans’ overall appetite for long-term engagement in the Middle East.
US Public Support for the Iran War Remains Weak
The United States went to war against Iran alongside Israel earlier this year despite low levels of domestic support for the action. From the outset, a strong majority of Americans — about six in ten— opposed military strikes on Iran. As the conflict unfolded rising gasoline and food prices, along with the persistent lack of clarity from Trump administration officials about the war’s rationale and Washington’s strategic end game, have kept Operation Epic Fury extremely unpopular among the US public. Sometimes, after a war begins, seeing one’s troops in harm’s way can produce a “rally around the flag” effect, boosting popular support for carrying on the armed struggle; but this conspicuously has not been the case with the Iran war.
More than a month and a half since the conflict began, here is a brief snapshot of where the US public stands:
About two-thirds of Americans (67%) disapprove of how Trump has handled the Iran war, including a majority (54%) who say they “strongly disapprove,” according to a new NBC News Decision Desk/Survey Monkey poll conducted from March 30-April 13.
As the Trump administration steps up military efforts in the naval blockade of Iran, 54% of Americans, according to a recent Ipsos poll, believe Operation Epic Fury as a whole has already negatively impacted their personal financial situation. Notably, 41% believe that US security will be diminished in the long run by the war, with only 26% saying American military operations will advance US security. Another 29% think the war will have limited impact on US security.
According to the same Ipsos survey, 51% of Americans believe that US military operations in Iran have not been worthwhile given the costs and benefits of developments thus far. Less than a quarter, 24%, see the outcomes of military action as beneficial, and 22% remain uncertain.
Unpopular wars that brought high economic and security costs have led to a backlash at the ballot box in the past. At the same time, lack of public support, along with sharp divisions among Americans, send signals to our adversaries and partners alike about the United States’ overall political will and resolve. Both considerations are likely to weigh on the minds of US lawmakers in the coming months, as issues of war-time budgetary appropriations and war powers authorizations rise to the top of Congress’s agenda.
War Powers and Funding: US Congress Increasingly Vocal About the Iran War
The 119th Congress, which came into office in January 2025, has to date largely focused on domestic issues, most notably last summer’s bill that extended the tax cuts from the first Trump administration and increased spending on immigration measures. In contrast, the current, Republican-controlled, legislature has not played much of a role in foreign policy and largely allowed the Trump administration to set its own agenda globally with few checks on executive authority. That may change. Though the center of gravity on Capitol Hill remains on the home front, the coming months will see foreign policy and defense issues, especially Iran and the Middle East, rise higher on the agenda, in part because of the strong public opposition to the Iran war.
Congress just returned from recess, during which time most members, Democrats and Republicans alike, heard much discontent in their districts about Iran, as the conflict has dragged on and the consequences of a war overseas have hit home. But with less than seven months before the midterm elections and only nine months left in its term, the 119th Congress will have a sizable agenda if it is to address the concerns of its members’ constituents.
Last week, Democrats in the House called for a vote to limit President Trump’s war powers, a resolution which failed for a third time in a 213 to 214 vote. Republican support for the war remained steady, and Democrats were also not entirely unified behind the measure. Some lawmakers on the left, like Representative Jared Golden of Maine, argued this measure would hurt the United States’ negotiating position and that efforts “to stop hostilities,” as he characterized the resolution, are unnecessary during a cease-fire.
Senate Democrats also voted on a similar measure last week, which failed for the fourth time in a vote of 52 to 47, with a single Republican and Democrat voting against party lines. Although Republicans demonstrated continued backing of President Trump’s Iran campaign, many are increasingly concerned over the conflict’s direction and lack of information surrounding its objectives and strategy.
May 1 — which would be the 60th calendar day of Operation Epic Fury — could emerge as a key marker in the Congressional debate about the Iran war. Some in the Republican caucus expect the war to either end before that date or believe the Trump administration will willingly come before Congress with a formal request to continue its operations before the 60-day deadline to do so, as mandated by the War Powers Act, comes to pass. However, President Trump has already effectively admitted that his administration is not labeling the US military campaign in Iran a “war” to avoid having to seek Congressional approval.
The 2026 Iran war is not the first instance in which Congress has attempted to use war-time resolutions to limit the president’s power. Shortly after former President Barack Obama’s bombing of Libya in 2011, lawmakers used war powers measures to address bipartisan discontent over his decision to intervene in the North African country without Congressional authorization. Both Democrats and Republicans have used such maneuvering as a political tool to express disagreement over executive military actions unapproved by the legislative branch.
Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer stated that 10 more war powers resolutions were filed and that Democrats would bring them to the floor every week, forcing Republican and Democratic lawmakers to go on the record in supporting the president’s war while also trying to win over defections. In other words, domestic pressure and focus on Iran will continue through April and May, barring any major shifts that lead to a winding down of military operations there.
Beyond the impending War Powers Act authorization deadline, Congress will face some tough votes on funding for an unpopular war later this spring. The White House recently put forward a 2027 proposed budget that includes an increase in defense spending to $1.5 trillion, while also cutting fiscal outlays on America’s domestic priorities, including the social safety net, by around $73 billion. The proposed FY27 budget would amount to a 44% increase in US defense spending compared to last year. In addition, a supplemental defense spending bill for the Iran war itself, estimated to total $80-100 billion, has already sparked debate among Congressional Republicans. They seek greater detail from the administration regarding not just the current operational situation but also a strategy for ending the war before approving a bill with a high price tag.
But the political road ahead is fraught for Trump and the Republicans, who hold slim majorities in both the Senate and the House. There is little room for Republican defections, while complaints from the party’s fiscal conservatives are growing. Some Republican legislators are on record saying they will not support additional funding unless Congress declares war.
Democrats in Congress, in turn, will continue to use the low US public support for the Iran war and economic fallout to highlight how the 2027 budget demonstrates the White House’s prioritization of defense spending over social programs, arguing that such budgets put “America Last.” In addition, a growing number of Democrats are increasingly fixated on cutting or conditioning US aid to Israel — a reflection of sharp public discontent, particularly among their voters, over how Israel has conducted military operations in places like Gaza, Lebanon, and Iran.
At a time when Americans are most concerned about affordability at home, continued military operations in the Middle East and requests for increased defense spending risk having the same effect that the 2003 Iraq war and its aftermath had on US domestic politics: sharpening divisions between the two political parties, while exacerbating fissures on foreign policy that have emerged within both the Republican and Democratic camps.
The recent history of US military actions in the Middle East demonstrate that these engagements rarely pay domestic political dividends for political leaders. The 1991 Gulf war, seen largely as a success, did little to prevent President George H.W. Bush from losing re-election to Democratic challenger Bill Clinton. The 2003 Iraq war and its fallout worsened President George W. Bush’s domestic political standing for the rest of his two terms in office. Even diplomatic successes like the 2020 Abraham Accords by the Trump administration have limited impact on domestic political success — Trump lost his re-election campaign to Joe Biden just weeks after those accords were signed.
No matter what happens next in the 2026 Iran war, it has already had an enduring effect on the world in many ways. Economists believe the global ripple effects of this war will be felt for a long time, and the fallout is reordering intra-Middle Eastern relations and reshaping US foreign policy toward the region and beyond.
But the war is also having a major impact on domestic politics inside of the United States — and could end up undercutting long-term American public support for overall engagement in the Middle East.