{"id":3358,"date":"2026-04-03T06:57:54","date_gmt":"2026-04-03T06:57:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/csr-italia.org\/?p=3358"},"modified":"2026-08-01T19:58:38","modified_gmt":"2026-08-01T17:58:38","slug":"no-kings","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/csr-italia.org\/en\/no-kings\/","title":{"rendered":"‘No Kings’"},"content":{"rendered":"

Congressional vote on war powers, constitutional limits and the political impact of the 'No Kings' protests on Trump's action against Iran<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

aggiornato al 31 luglio 2026<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

1. Established fact<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

On 4 March 2026 the Senate rejected the motion to discharge concerning S.J.Res. 104 by a vote of 53\u201347. The measure's text aimed to direct the removal of US armed forces from hostilities against Iran not authorized by Congress. On 5 March 2026 the House then rejected H. Con. Res. 38 by a vote of 219\u2013212; the resolution would have directed the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove US armed forces from unauthorized hostilities in the Islamic Republic of Iran. In legal terms, Congress therefore did not grant new powers to the President; it chose not to block, at that moment, the expansion of his operational latitude.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2. Constitutional framework<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The United States Constitution does not grant the President unlimited war powers. Article II, Section 2, makes the President the Commander in Chief. Article I, Section 8, by contrast, grants Congress the power to declare war and to regulate the instruments connected to the use of force. The Congressional Constitution Annotated confirms that the war powers are distributed between the two branches and that the President's function is one of military command, not of unlimited sovereignty over the use of force.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

3. Operational regulatory framework<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 was adopted to ensure that the introduction of US armed forces into hostilities occurs on the basis of the collective judgment of Congress and the President. The law requires consultation, reporting and specific mechanisms of congressional action. On this point too, there is no basis for arguing that the vote of early March suspended the constitutional constraints or transformed the President's military initiative into a prerogative free from oversight.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

4. Evolution of the domestic political context: the 'No Kings' protests<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The 'No Kings' protests of 28 March 2026, however, alter the political framework within which that vote must be interpreted. The Associated Press reported that more than 3,100 events took place across all 50 US states and in numerous foreign countries, with a mobilization described as broad, widespread and largely peaceful, even though in some cities \u2014 Los Angeles in particular \u2014 clashes and arrests occurred after dispersal orders. The protests targeted both the war against Iran and the more general perception of an authoritarian expansion of presidential power. The White House dismissed the demonstrations as the expression of left-wing funding networks lacking any real popular support.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

5. Updated legal-political assessment<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

In light of the 'No Kings' protests, the correct formulation becomes even sharper. Congress did not authorize Trump to do whatever he wished in defiance of the Constitution; it chose not to oppose effectively the practical expansion of his war powers. The mass protests do not change the constitutional fact, but they bear on the political legitimacy of the congressional choice and refute the idea of a compact national consensus around the presidential initiative. In substantive terms, a growing divergence emerges between short-term parliamentary cover and large-scale public contestation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

6. Strategic Implication<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The politically most relevant point is that Congress's failure to contain does not coincide with a stabilization of presidential power. On the contrary, the March vote now appears embedded in a framework of growing polarization, in which the presidentialization of military decision-making is accompanied by widespread, trans-state domestic contestation. This makes more fragile the narrative according to which the executive would be operating with a full political mandate. The risk is not only the erosion of checks and balances; it is also the growing divergence between contested legality, institutional cover and perceived democratic legitimacy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

7. The historic vote of 23 June and its scaling-back<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

7.1 The Senate approves a war powers resolution for the first time (23 June 2026)<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

On 23 June 2026 the Senate approved, by a vote of 50\u201348, a resolution directing the President to withdraw US armed forces from hostilities against Iran. It is a politically unprecedented fact: never before had a war powers resolution been approved by the Senate against an ongoing military operation decided by a sitting President. Four Republican senators \u2014 Bill Cassidy (Louisiana), Susan Collins (Maine), Rand Paul (Kentucky) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) \u2014 voted with the Democrats; the sole Democratic senator John Fetterman (Pennsylvania) voted against.

The vote comes after months in which Congress, as described in the previous sections, had failed to translate public dissent (including the 'No Kings' protests of 28 March) into a binding act. 23 June therefore marks, at least formally, the first breaking point in that dynamic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

7.2 The scaling-back of 24 June<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The following day, 24 June 2026, the Senate rejected late in the evening a second, similar measure, effectively withdrawing part of the scope of the previous vote. Two of the four Republicans who had voted in favor the day before changed position under pressure from the White House: Rand Paul voted \"present\" and Bill Cassidy voted against advancing the measure, after a closed-door briefing at the White House with Vice President JD Vance and special envoy Steve Witkoff. Trump had publicly criticized the Republican senators who had voted in favor of the 23 June resolution, arguing that Congress had weakened his negotiating position with Iran.

The 23\u201324 June sequence therefore shows a Congress capable, for the first time, of a formal act of rebuke \u2014 but not of sustaining it over time in the face of pressure from the executive.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

7.3 Hostilities continue beyond the vote<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Despite the vote of 23 June, the clashes between the United States and Iran did not stop: in late June new US strikes on Iranian targets were reported (\"second day of strikes\", 28 June 2026), raising questions about the compatibility of these actions with the very resolution approved a few days earlier. The 23 June measure, though historic on the symbolic level, therefore did not prevent the continuation of military operations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Update (late July 2026):<\/strong> a month later, hostilities have not only continued but widened, with Saudi Arabia's entry into the conflict (joint US\u2013Saudi strikes in Iraq, 29 July). This reinforces the article's thesis: short-term parliamentary cover and Congress's attempts at rebuke did not constrain the operational expansion of the presidential military initiative.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

SECTION 8 - Conclusions<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

In the first phase (March\u2013May 2026) Congress did not effectively oppose the expansion of presidential war powers, despite the pressure of the 'No Kings' protests.

On 23 June 2026 this dynamic was temporarily reversed, with the first-ever approval of a war powers resolution against an ongoing operation. But the scaling-back of the following day, under direct pressure from the White House, and the continuation of the strikes in late June show that even a historic act by the Senate does not automatically translate into an operational constraint on the President.

In short:
Congress demonstrated, for the first time, the political capacity to vote a limit on presidential war powers \u2014 but not the capacity to enforce it.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Main sources<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

– U.S. Senate, Roll Call Vote 46, 119th Congress, 2nd Session, 4 marzo 2026, Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 104 rejected (53-47).

– Office of the Clerk, U.S. House of Representatives, Roll Call 85, 119th Congress, 2nd Session, 5 marzo 2026, H. Con. Res. 38 failed (219-212).

– Constitution Annotated, Congress.gov \/ Library of Congress, Overview of Congressional War Powers; Historical Background on Commander in Chief Clause.

– War Powers Resolution, Public Law 93-148; govinfo \/ U.S. Government Publishing Office; 50 U.S.C. chapter 33.

– Associated Press, 28-30 marzo 2026, copertura delle manifestazioni ‘No Kings’ negli Stati Uniti e in Europa, inclusi gli articoli sul raduno nazionale in Minnesota e sugli arresti a Los Angeles

In symbolic vote, Congress directs Trump to remove forces from Iran war \u2014 NPR, 23 giugno 2026<\/a>

US Senate approves Iran war powers resolution: what that means for Trump \u2014 Al Jazeera, 24 giugno 2026<\/a>

War powers resolution: Senate votes to walk back rebuke of Trump over Iran \u2014 CNN, 24 giugno 2026<\/a>

Senate rejects measure to restrict Trump’s Iran war powers as key Republicans shift votes \u2014 CBS News<\/a>US strikes Iran for second day: Is it a violation of war powers resolution? \u2014 Al Jazeera, 28 giugno 2026<\/a>

Approfondisci:
Areas of Global Strategic Analysis<\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Voto del Congresso sui war powers, limiti costituzionali e impatto politico delle manifestazioni ‘No Kings’ sull’azione di Trump contro l’Iran \u2014 aggiornato al 1\u00b0 luglio 2026<\/p>","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[59],"tags":[84,90,25,166,140],"class_list":["post-3358","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-analisi-geopolitica","tag-autonomia-strategica","tag-europa","tag-medio-oriente","tag-stati-uniti","tag-trump"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t