Senate to vote on Democrats’ Iran war powers resolution
U.S. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) speaks during a news conference on the Epstein Files on Capitol Hill February 26, 2026 in Washington, DC. (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — The Senate will vote Wednesday on a Democratic-led Iran war powers resolution, according to a press release from Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and bill co-sponsors Sens. Tim Kaine and Adam Schiff.
The resolution would direct the removal of United States armed forces from hostilities within or against Iran that have not been authorized by Congress. It comes after recent U.S. strikes on Iran that killed several Iranian leaders, including Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader of Iran.
There is no timeline in the bill, so if it passed and President Donald Trump signed it, the U.S. would have to draw down troops.
Because this bill is privileged, it would only need 51 votes to advance and ultimately be approved by the Senate. It’s not yet clear whether the legislation will have that support, but at this time it seems unlikely to advance.
Earlier this year, a similar resolution concerning military action in Venezuela passed an initial procedural test vote when a small handful of Republican senators voted with Democrats to move it forward. Some of those Republicans were ultimately swayed to revoke their support for that legislation during a vote on final passage, and the bill was ultimately defeated by Vice President JD Vance’s tie-breaking vote.
This time around though, Republicans seem even more inclined to support Trump’s actions in Iran.
Republican Sen. Josh Hawley, of Missouri, was one of the Republicans who initially supported the Venezuela war powers resolution before ultimately voting against it during a vote of final passage. His switch in position during that vote in January came after Trump attacked Hawley and the other Republicans who initially supported the proposal in a post on social media.
Hawley told ABC News on Tuesday that he would vote against the Iran war powers resolution.
The legislation cites the 1973 War Powers Resolution, which states that in the absence of a declaration of war but when armed forces are introduced, the president must report to Congress within 48 hours the circumstances necessitating their introduction and must terminate the use of U.S. armed forces within 60 days unless Congress permits otherwise. If approval is not granted and the president deems it an emergency, then an additional 30 days are granted for ending operations.
“I think they’re in compliance with the statute. The statute gives them 60 days, gives the administration 60 days to conduct activity without having to come back to … Congress for authorization, unless they’re ground troops. My view has always been, ground troops will require congressional authorization. So they’re currently none involved, none have been involved, and they’re following the War Powers Act,” Hawley said.
Still, Democrats say the vote is critical. Sen. Kaine, of Virginia, who is leading the Iran resolution and who has been an outspoken proponent of Congress’ role in declaring war, said the vote will show where everyone stands on the conflict.
“We’re going to put everybody on the record [Wednesday]. Nobody gets to hide and give the president an easy pass or an end run around the Constitution,” Kaine said on Tuesday. “Everybody’s got to declare whether they’re for this war or against it.”
Without the support of at least a few Republicans, the Iran resolution is likely to fail to advance during Wednesday’s vote.
Even if this legislation were to pass, it would still require approval in the House and the signature of the president to become law. It is highly unlikely Trump would sign the bill should it make it to his desk.
Former Special Counsel Jack Smith (C) arrives to testify during a closed-door deposition before the House Judiciary Committee in the Rayburn House Office Building on Capitol Hill on December 17, 2025 in Washington, DC. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Former special counsel Jack Smith, testifying Thursday before the GOP-led House Judiciary Committee, was unequivocal about who caused the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.
“Our investigation revealed that Donald Trump is the person who caused Jan. 6, that it was foreseeable to him and that he sought to exploit the violence,” Smith testified. “We followed the facts and we followed the law — where that led us was to an indictment of an unprecedented criminal scheme to block the peaceful transfer of power.”
Smith, who led investigations into Trump’s alleged interference in the 2020 election and alleged mishandling of classified documents, is testifying publicly for first time about his probes.
Trump pleaded not guilty to all charges in both cases, before both cases were dropped following Trump’s reelection due to the Justice Department’s long-standing policy barring the prosecution of a sitting president.
The former special counsel said that partisan politics did not play a role in his decision to charge Trump in his two investigations.
“Some of the most powerful witnesses were witnesses who, in fact, were fellow Republicans who had voted for Donald Trump, who had campaigned for him and, who wanted him to win the election. These included state officials, people who worked on his campaign and advisors,” Smith said of his election interference probe.
In seeking to challenge the results of the 2020 election, Trump was “looking for ways to stay in power,” Smith testified.
Trump was not “was not looking for honest answers about whether there was fraud in the election. He was looking for ways to stay in power. And when people told him, things that conflicted with him staying power, he rejected them or he chose not even to contact people like that,” Smith told committee members.
Under questioning from Democratic Rep. Zoe Lofgren, Smith discussed the witnesses his team had interviewed in his election interference probe.
“There were witnesses who I felt would be very strong witnesses, including, for example, the secretary of state in Georgia who told Donald Trump the truth, told him things that he did not want to hear and put him on notice that what he was saying was false,” Smith said. “And I believe that witnesses of that nature, witnesses who are willing to tell the truth, even if it’s going to impose a cost on them in their lives — my experience as a prosecutor over 30 years is that witnesses like that are very credible, and that jurors tend to believe witnesses like that, because they pay a cost for telling the truth.”
Smith said that he got the phone toll records for some members of Congress because his office was investigating the conspiracy to stop the peaceful transfer of power.
“We wanted to conduct a thorough investigation of the matters, that were assigned to me, including attempts to interfere with the lawful transfer of power. The conspiracy that we were investigating, it was relevant to get toll records, to understand the scope of that conspiracy, who they were seeking to coerce, who they were seeking to influence, who was seeking to help them,” Smith said, arguing that it was a normal piece of an investigation.
In a back-and-forth with Republican Rep. Darryl Issa, Smith said he didn’t target then-President Joe Biden’s political enemies.
“Maybe they’re not your political enemies, but they sure as hell were Joe Biden’s political enemies, weren’t they? They were Harris’ political enemies. They were the enemies of the president and you were their arm, weren’t you?” Issa asked.
“No,” Smith said. “My office didn’t spy on anyone.”
He said that the decision to bring charges against Trump was solely his decision and that he was not pressured by any Biden official.
“President Trump was charged because the evidence established that he willfully broke the law, the very laws he took an oath to uphold,” Smith said. “Grand juries in two separate districts reached this conclusion based on his actions as alleged in the indictments they returned.”
In his introductory remarks, Smith also said the president illegally kept classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate.
“After leaving office in January of ’21, President Trump illegally kept classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago Social Club and repeatedly tried to obstruct justice to conceal his continued retention of those documents. Highly sensitive national security information withheld in a ballroom and a bathroom,” Smith said.
Smith said that the facts and the law supported a prosecution, and that he made decisions not based on politics, but the facts and the law.
“Our investigation developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump engaged in criminal activity. If asked whether to prosecute a former president based on the same facts today, I would do so regardless of whether that president was a Democrat or a Republican,” he said.
“No one, no one should be above the law in this country, and the law required that he be held to account. So that is what I did,” Smith said. “To have done otherwise on the facts of these cases, would have been to shirk my duties as a prosecutor and as a public servant, of which I had no intention of doing.”
He also criticized what he said was the retribution carried out by the president and his allies against agents and prosecutors who investigated the cases.
“My fear is that we have seen the rule of law function in our country for so long that many of us have come to take it for granted,” he said. “The rule of law is not self-executing. It depends on our collective commitment to apply it. It requires dedicated service on behalf of others, especially when that service is difficult and comes with costs. Our willingness to pay those costs is what test and defines our commitment to the rule of law and to this wonderful country.”
In his opening statement, Committee Chairman Jim Jordan blasted Smith for what he called a partisan investigation into President Trump and other Republicans.
“Democrats have been going after President Trump for ten years, for a decade, and the country should never, ever forget what they did,” Jordan said.
Jamie Raskin, the committee’s ranking Democrat, said that Smith proved that Trump “engaged in a criminal scheme to overturn the results of the 2020 election and to prevent the lawful transfer of power.”
“Special counsel Smith, you pursued the facts. You followed every applicable law, ethics rule and DOJ regulation. Your decisions were reviewed by the Public Integrity section. You acted based solely on the facts — the opposite of Donald Trump,” Raskin said.
Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell said that Republicans on the dais “are a joke.”
“They’re wrong. History will harshly judge them,” he said.
Trump’s Thursday appearance marks Smith’s second time before the committee, after he appeared behind closed doors last month. It is customary for former special counsels to appear before Congress publicly to discuss their findings.
In his closed-door testimony, Smith defended his decision to twice bring charges against Trump — telling lawmakers his team “had proof beyond reasonable doubt in both cases” that Trump was guilty of the charges in the 2020 election interference and classified documents cases, according to a transcript of the hearing.
And Smith fervently denied that there was any political influence behind his decision — contrary to allegations of Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, who requested the testimony — such as pressure from then-President Joe Biden or then-Attorney General Merrick Garland, the transcripts shows.
“No,” Smith responded continuously to those allegations, according to the transcript.
Just over an hour before his testimony on Dec. 17, the Department of Justice sent an email to Smith’s lawyers preventing him from discussing the classified documents case, according to the 255-page transcript of the deposition, released last year by the Judiciary Committee along with a video of the hearing.
This meant Smith was unable to answer most questions on that case and the deposition — intended to ask questions about the alleged weaponization of the DOJ against Trump and his allies — mainly focused on the 2020 election case instead.
His team also said Smith will comply with U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon’s order that blocked the release of the second volume of his report dealing with the classified documents case.
Smith’s counsel said the DOJ also refused to send a lawyer to advise Smith on whether his statements were in line with their determination of what he could or could not say regarding the cases, according to the deposition. Smith did say, however, that Trump “tried to obstruct justice” in the classified documents investigation “to conceal his continued retention of those documents.
Rep. Thomas Massie arrives for a House vote on the funding bill to reopen the government, February 3, 2026, in Washington. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, a key member of President Donald Trump’s Cabinet, is facing bipartisan calls to resign over new revelations about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.
Documents released by the Justice Department late last month show Lutnick remained in contact with Epstein as recently as 2018, years after Epstein pleaded guilty to sex crimes including soliciting prostitution from a minor.
“Look, Howard Lutnick clearly went to the island if we believe what’s in these files. He was in business with Jeffrey Epstein. And this was many years after Jeffrey Epstein was convicted. You know, lightly sentenced, but was convicted for sexual crimes,” Republican Rep. Thomas Massie said on CNN’s “Inside Politics” on Sunday.
“So, he’s got a lot to answer for. But really, he should make life easier on the president, frankly, and just resign,” Massie said.
Massie, along with Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna, led the push for the Justice Department to release its files on Epstein and has since raised questions about the department’s transparency on the matter. Massie, Khanna and other members of Congress on Monday are visiting the Justice Department to view unredacted Epstein documents.
Democratic Rep. Robert Garcia, the ranking Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, wrote on X: “It’s now clear that Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has been lying about his relationship with Epstein. He said he had no interactions with Epstein after 2005, yet we now know they were in business together. Lutnick must resign or be fired. And he must answer our questions.”
Lutnick, who lived next door to Epstein for over a decade, previously suggested he had distanced himself from Epstein back in the mid-2000s prior to Epstein’s conviction in 2008.
“So, I was never in the room with him socially, for business or even philanthropy. If that guy was there, I wasn’t going because he’s gross,” Lutnick said on the “Pod Force One” podcast back in October.
“That’s my story. A one and absolutely done,” Lutnick said.
But one email from Epstein’s schedule for May, 1, 2011, showed plans for drinks with Lutnick.
And in December of 2012, other documents showed Lutnick and his family planned to visit Epstein’s private island. That same month, both Lutnick and Epstein invested in the same business, according to legal documents.
A spokesperson for the Department of Commerce told ABC News on Monday, “Mr. and Mrs. Lutnick met Jeffrey Epstein in 2005 and had very limited interactions with him over the next 14 years.”
The White House stood by Lutnick when asked about the latest reports detailing their relationship.
“President Trump has assembled the best and most transformative cabinet in modern history. The entire Trump administration, including Secretary Lutnick and the Department of Commerce, remains focused on delivering for the American people,” White House spokesman Kush Desai said in a statement.
ABC News Capitol Hill Correspondent Jay O’Brien asked House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, who is leading the panel’s investigation into Epstein, if he plans to add Lutnick to the panel’s list of subpoenas.
“We’re going to try to get these five [subpoenas] nailed down,” Comer said, referring to the individuals the committee has called to testify, including former President Bill Clinton, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, billionaire businessman Les Wexner and others.
“We’ve got a lot of very important people we’re trying to bring in that to answer questions. We don’t want to do anything to jeopardize the five that we have on the books. So we’ll see what happens here, and we’ll move forward,” Comer, a Republican, said.
The chairman added, “We’re interested in talking to anyone that might have any information that would help us get justice for the survivors.”
Democrats, many of whom have begun calling on Lutnick to step down, were also asked if they’d be open to calling Lutnick’s testimony.
“It’s really important for folks to understand that in order for us to subpoena anybody, the majority has to consent. And so while we appreciate that there is bipartisan cooperation in this case, we have a whole list of individuals we would like to subpoena before the committee that they have not consented to,” Rep. Melanie Stansbury, a New Mexico Democrat, said. “Of course, we would like to speak to Secretary Lutnick, and I personally believe that Mr. Lutnick needs to step down immediately.”
Massie, on CNN on Sunday, was asked on CNN on Sunday if Lutnick should come and testify before Congress about Epstein.
“No, he should just resign,” Massie said.
ABC News’ Isabella Murray and Hannah Demissie contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said Thursday that trilateral talks between Ukraine, Russia and the United States are expected to be held in the United Arab Emirates.
“I think that it will be the first trilateral meeting in Emirates. It will be tomorrow and the day after tomorrow,” Zelenskyy said as he spoke at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
