Eight months into the war on Iran, voters have said plainly they want it to end, and they handed Congress to the party that promised to push for that. The president has said the opposite: he defends the war, says he has won it, and says it will continue. That sets up the real question for January, and for December too: can Congress actually end a war a president wants to keep fighting — and should it try with the one tool it clearly owns, the money?
What We Know
The war began on February 28, when the United States launched strikes alongside Israel, without approval from Congress beforehand, according to a Reuters explainer published November 12. Lawmakers have voted repeatedly since then on war powers resolutions to end the fighting unless the president seeks authorization. One passed both chambers, the administration ignored it, and legal experts, Reuters notes, do not agree on whether it was binding. A Reuters/Ipsos poll this month, reported in that explainer, found 71% of Americans — including 93% of Democrats and 51% of Republicans — want Congress to pass legislation ending the conflict.
Congress can write into a spending bill that no funds may be used for hostilities against Iran, refuse war funding in the defense authorization bill, and hold hearings with subpoenas. The president can veto any of it, and overriding takes two-thirds of both chambers, so Democrats would need real Republican support. Reuters also reports the president has asked for a large defense increase plus additional war money — a request the incoming majority says it will not approve as written. Funding expires December 11, so this fight arrives soon either way.
The Strongest Case for Using the Purse to End It
The strongest case for Congress acting is constitutional, not just political. The Constitution gives Congress the power to spend, and the power to declare war, for a reason: a war that lasts eight months and affects prices and lives at home should not rest on one person’s say-so alone. If the elected branch cannot say no to paying for a war, its war power is mostly words on paper.
Voters knew this war was unpopular, said so in polling, and then changed who controls Congress in part because of it. Ignoring that would tell people their vote matters for everything except the biggest decision a government makes. Supporters also note that presidents rarely end open-ended wars on their own timetable. Speeches are easy to wait out. Money is not.
The Strongest Case Against a Funding Cutoff
The strongest case against is also serious, and it is not just loyalty to the president. A commander in chief has to be able to run an operation without 535 people voting on each move, and a sudden cutoff in the middle of fighting can put the people already deployed at risk. Troops in the field need fuel, protection, and a way home that is planned, not improvised because a funding clause took effect on a date chosen for political effect.
There is a negotiating point too. If an adversary believes American funding will run out on a fixed public date no matter what happens at the table, it has every reason to wait rather than settle. And there is a governing risk at home: a funding ban attached to a must-pass bill invites a veto, and a veto invites a shutdown, with troop pay and ordinary services caught in the middle. Opponents are right to ask whether a Congress that cannot yet override a veto is promising an ending it cannot deliver.
The Middle Path: Force an Authorization Vote and Oversight
Between a blank check and an abrupt cutoff sits the work Congress is built for. Hold the hearings. Subpoena the strategy, the costs, and the legal basis, and make the administration defend them in public. Then force a clean vote on authorization itself — not a symbolic resolution lawyers can argue about, but a yes-or-no question: is this war authorized, for what purpose, and until when? That puts every member on the record, gives anti-war Republicans and fiscal hawks a specific thing to join, and gives the president a fair chance to make his case that the threat requires more time.
Where I Land
I land with Congress — but with a dated, responsible end, not an overnight cutoff. The president should have to seek authorization for a war this long, and if Congress will not grant it, funding should wind down on a clear schedule that fully pays for protecting our people and bringing them home safely. That respects the Constitution, the election result, and the troops enough not to strand them in an argument between two branches.
What I do not support is using a shutdown as the weapon, or pretending a veto-proof majority exists when it does not. Pass the authorization question first, in the open. If the votes to end this war are really there — across party lines, as the polling suggests they might be — that vote is how we find out, and how an ending, when it comes, will actually hold.