17 stories credited to Conservative Institute
Latest story Apr 19, 2026 · on ChamberLight since Apr 2026
A story can appear as several articles (copies of the same piece), so counts of stories and of articles differ.
Scores for Conservative Institute
Political lean
17 stories · 95% range 76.2–85.2 · updated Sep 24, 2026
Originality
17 stories · updated Sep 24, 2026
Writing quality 67 of 100: the average rating of 17 stories, each rated on its own (separate from credibility). How it is measured
Scores last checked Sep 25, 2026.
Stories ChamberLight collected, by month
Stories credited to Conservative Institute, by publication date. ChamberLight collects articles that mention the officials it tracks, so this shows its own coverage of this source, not how much the source publishes.
- Stories from Conservative Institute
- Shaded: ChamberLight collected no stories, or almost none, from any outlet (a gap in its collection, not in the outlet’s publishing)
Show as a table
| Month | Stories | All outlets |
|---|---|---|
| March 2026 | 1 | 521 |
| April 2026 | 16 | 4,537 |
| May 2026 | 0 | none collected |
| June 2026 | 0 | none collected |
| July 2026 | 0 | none collected |
| August 2026 | 0 | 1 (collection gap) |
| September 2026 | 0 | 598 |
Top topics
Share of this source’s stories tagged with each topic. A story can carry several topics, so the shares do not add up to 100%.
- Ethics/Corruption12
71% of 17 stories · 56% across all outlets
- Foreign Policy8
47% of 17 stories · 28% across all outlets
- Budget/Spending7
41% of 17 stories · 30% across all outlets
- Defense/Military7
41% of 17 stories · 24% across all outlets
- Economy5
29% of 17 stories · 24% across all outlets
- Voting Rights5
29% of 17 stories · 18% across all outlets
- Criminal Justice3
18% of 17 stories · 18% across all outlets
- Immigration2
12% of 17 stories · 12% across all outlets
The thin mark on each bar is the topic’s share across all outlets.
Who they cover
Party of the officials these stories are mainly about, across all 25 officials named. A story counts once for each official it is mainly about, so the split is over 35 story–official pairs, from 17 stories.
- Democrat51% · 18 pairs
- Republican46% · 16 pairs
- Party not recorded3% · 1 pair
Most covered
Stories mainly about each official, and their share of the source’s 17 stories.
- 1Donald TrumpR3 stories · 18%
- 2Alexandria Ocasio-CortezD2 stories · 12%
- 3Charles SchumerD2 stories · 12%
- 4Eric SwalwellD2 stories · 12%
- 5John FettermanD2 stories · 12%
- 6Lindsey GrahamR2 stories · 12%
- 7Maria SalazarR2 stories · 12%
- 8Michael LawlerR2 stories · 12%
- 9Tammy DuckworthD2 stories · 12%
- 10Catherine Cortez MastoD1 story · 6%
+ 15 other officials (15 story–official pairs)
Article tone
ChamberLight’s article analysis assigns each story a tone toward the official it covers. It describes the coverage of that official, not Conservative Institute’s stance, and reader votes do not change it. 17 stories.
- Good Look
- 1 (6%)
- Mixed
- 11 (65%)
- Informational
- 0 (0%)
- Bad Look
- 5 (29%)
Related sources
Lean 95% range 75–84 · updated Sep 25, 2026
Similar lean · 3 shared topics
Lean 95% range 75–88 · updated Sep 25, 2026
Similar lean · 3 shared topics
Lean 95% range 74–84 · updated Sep 25, 2026
Similar lean · 3 shared topics
Lean 95% range 76–81 · updated Sep 25, 2026
Similar lean · 3 shared topics
Lean 95% range 74–82 · updated Sep 25, 2026
Similar lean · 3 shared topics
Lean 95% range 72–84 · updated Sep 25, 2026
Similar lean · 3 shared topics
Challenges to these scores
No one has challenged a score on this page yet. Anyone can; editors publish every outcome here.
Articles served from conservativeinstitute.org
35
Republican senators warn they may break with Trump on Iran war powers as 60-day deadline nears
Two Senate Republicans who helped block Democratic efforts to rein in President Trump's military campaign in Iran now say their support has limits, and the clock is running. Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Thom Tillis of North Carolina each signaled this week that they could oppose continuing hostilities without congressional authorization if the conflict reaches the 60-day threshold set by the War Powers Resolution of 1973. The warnings land at an awkward moment. Senate Republicans just defeated a fourth Democratic attempt to invoke war powers constraints, voting 52, 47 on Wednesday to table the measure. But with the U.S.-led campaign in Iran now past its 45th day, the comfortable margin that has shielded the White House may be narrowing, not because Democrats found new votes, but because Republicans who backed the president are starting to ask harder questions. Collins, speaking at the Semafor World Economy summit, laid down a clear marker: "I have said from the very beginning that if the military hostilities in Iran continue to that 60th day, then I believe the War Powers Act is implemented, and the president would need congressional authorization to continue the war in Iran." She went further, telling Semafor that she had "always wanted this operation to be brief but successful" and that it was "very likely" she would vote against authorizing further hostilities if the deadline arrives without a resolution. Tillis raises strategic doubts Tillis, who is not running for reelection and therefore faces no primary pressure to stay in line, offered a blunter assessment in an exclusive NBC News interview. He called it "difficult" to win his support for extending the conflict past 60 days and pointed to a gap in the administration's public case. "What's concerning me now is we're coming up on the 45-day mark. Sixty days is important with respect to the War Powers Resolution, and I'm not quite clear what the strategic objectives are." That last line, "not quite clear what the strategic objectives are", is the kind of sentence that should focus minds at the Pentagon and the West Wing. Tillis is no dove. He voted to block every Democratic war powers resolution so far. When a loyal ally says he cannot identify the mission's goals approaching the halfway mark of the legal window, the administration has a communications problem at minimum. Tillis did leave himself room, saying he was "not a no" on additional military funding but would need specifics. The distinction matters. He is not grandstanding against the president. He is asking for a plan, a reasonable request from a senator whose constitutional duty includes authorizing the use of force. The War Powers Resolution and the 60-day clock The War Powers Resolution, enacted in 1973, limits the president's authority to wage war abroad without the consent of Congress. It requires the commander-in-chief to notify lawmakers within 48 hours of military action and bars armed forces from remaining engaged longer than 60 days without congressional approval. The U.S. campaign in Iran began on February 28 with joint U.S.-Israel strikes against Iranian leadership, military, and nuclear targets. That puts the 60-day mark somewhere around late April, just days away. House and Senate Democrats have forced several war powers votes since the campaign started, each time falling short as Republicans held together to reject the measures. Wednesday's vote was the latest example. Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky was the lone Republican to side with Democrats, while Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania crossed the aisle to vote with the GOP, a pattern that has repeated itself on several high-profile Senate votes this session. But the math changes if Collins and Tillis flip. With a 52, 47 majority already thin enough that a single Republican defection forced the White House to rely on Fetterman, losing two more GOP votes could put the president's war authority in genuine jeopardy. Murkowski moves behind the scenes Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska adds another layer. She has been working with other Senate Republicans on a resolution that would formally authorize military force against Iran beyond 60 days, a move that implicitly concedes Congress needs to weigh in. Murkowski reportedly wants that authorization in place before agreeing to the president's request for a boost in military funding. That approach is worth watching. Rather than simply blocking the president, Murkowski is trying to channel the constitutional process: authorize the mission, define its scope, then fund it. It is the kind of deliberate institutional maneuvering that has defined recent Senate GOP strategy on the Iran question, block premature Democratic resolutions while quietly building a framework for legitimate oversight. Trump's message from Las Vegas President Trump, speaking Thursday in Las Vegas, projected confidence. The Associated Press reported his remarks: "I will say the war in Iran is going along swimmingly. It should be ending pretty soon." The optimism is welcome if it reflects ground truth. But "pretty soon" is not a timeline, and "swimmingly" is not a strategic objective. Tillis's complaint, that he cannot identify clear goals, suggests that at least some Senate Republicans need more than reassurance. They need a briefing, a defined endstate, and a credible path to conclusion before they will extend the legal authority the president currently operates under. None of this means the administration is in crisis. Collins and Tillis have not voted against the president yet. They have signaled conditions, not opposition. The distinction is important. Collins has shown repeatedly this session that she will work with Republican leadership when the case is made, but she expects the case to be made. The real question Congress must answer The War Powers Resolution exists for a reason. It was written after Vietnam to prevent open-ended military commitments that drift beyond their original purpose without democratic accountability. Conservatives who believe in constitutional order should welcome, not resent, senators who take the 60-day clock seriously. The president has broad authority as commander-in-chief. But that authority is not unlimited, and the founders designed a system in which Congress holds the power to declare war. If the Iran campaign is succeeding, the administration should have no trouble making the case to Congress. If the objectives are unclear even to supportive Republican senators 45 days in, that is a problem worth fixing, not papering over with party-line votes. Democrats, for their part, have tried to exploit the war powers issue for political advantage since day one, forcing repeated votes designed less to assert congressional authority than to embarrass the president. That pattern of reflexive opposition has made it easy for Republicans to dismiss every resolution as partisan theater. But the approaching deadline changes the calculus. When the 60-day mark arrives, the question stops being about Democratic messaging and starts being about the Constitution. Tillis put it plainly: sixty days matters. Collins drew a bright line. Murkowski is drafting an authorization. These are not acts of rebellion. They are acts of governance, the Senate doing what the Senate is supposed to do. The White House has roughly two weeks to bring its own party along. That means clear objectives, a credible timeline, and a willingness to submit to the process the Constitution requires. Senate Republicans have shown they can unify when leadership gives them something concrete to rally behind. The question now is whether the administration will provide it, or assume loyalty alone will carry the vote. A president who wins the argument in Congress comes out stronger than one who avoids it. That has always been true, and it is especially true when the stakes are measured in American lives and the credibility of American power abroad. The post Republican senators warn they may break with Trump on Iran war powers as 60-day deadline nears appeared first on Conservative Institute.
Republican senators warn they may break with Trump on Iran war powers as 60-day deadline nears
Two Senate Republicans who helped block Democratic efforts to rein in President Trump's military campaign in Iran now say their support has limits, and the clock is running. Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Thom Tillis of North Carolina each signaled this week that they could oppose continuing hostilities without congressional authorization if the conflict reaches the 60-day threshold set by the War Powers Resolution of 1973. The warnings land at an awkward moment. Senate Republicans just defeated a fourth Democratic attempt to invoke war powers constraints, voting 52, 47 on Wednesday to table the measure. But with the U.S.-led campaign in Iran now past its 45th day, the comfortable margin that has shielded the White House may be narrowing, not because Democrats found new votes, but because Republicans who backed the president are starting to ask harder questions. Collins, speaking at the Semafor World Economy summit, laid down a clear marker: "I have said from the very beginning that if the military hostilities in Iran continue to that 60th day, then I believe the War Powers Act is implemented, and the president would need congressional authorization to continue the war in Iran." She went further, telling Semafor that she had "always wanted this operation to be brief but successful" and that it was "very likely" she would vote against authorizing further hostilities if the deadline arrives without a resolution. Tillis raises strategic doubts Tillis, who is not running for reelection and therefore faces no primary pressure to stay in line, offered a blunter assessment in an exclusive NBC News interview. He called it "difficult" to win his support for extending the conflict past 60 days and pointed to a gap in the administration's public case. "What's concerning me now is we're coming up on the 45-day mark. Sixty days is important with respect to the War Powers Resolution, and I'm not quite clear what the strategic objectives are." That last line, "not quite clear what the strategic objectives are", is the kind of sentence that should focus minds at the Pentagon and the West Wing. Tillis is no dove. He voted to block every Democratic war powers resolution so far. When a loyal ally says he cannot identify the mission's goals approaching the halfway mark of the legal window, the administration has a communications problem at minimum. Tillis did leave himself room, saying he was "not a no" on additional military funding but would need specifics. The distinction matters. He is not grandstanding against the president. He is asking for a plan, a reasonable request from a senator whose constitutional duty includes authorizing the use of force. The War Powers Resolution and the 60-day clock The War Powers Resolution, enacted in 1973, limits the president's authority to wage war abroad without the consent of Congress. It requires the commander-in-chief to notify lawmakers within 48 hours of military action and bars armed forces from remaining engaged longer than 60 days without congressional approval. The U.S. campaign in Iran began on February 28 with joint U.S.-Israel strikes against Iranian leadership, military, and nuclear targets. That puts the 60-day mark somewhere around late April, just days away. House and Senate Democrats have forced several war powers votes since the campaign started, each time falling short as Republicans held together to reject the measures. Wednesday's vote was the latest example. Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky was the lone Republican to side with Democrats, while Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania crossed the aisle to vote with the GOP, a pattern that has repeated itself on several high-profile Senate votes this session. But the math changes if Collins and Tillis flip. With a 52, 47 majority already thin enough that a single Republican defection forced the White House to rely on Fetterman, losing two more GOP votes could put the president's war authority in genuine jeopardy. Murkowski moves behind the scenes Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska adds another layer. She has been working with other Senate Republicans on a resolution that would formally authorize military force against Iran beyond 60 days, a move that implicitly concedes Congress needs to weigh in. Murkowski reportedly wants that authorization in place before agreeing to the president's request for a boost in military funding. That approach is worth watching. Rather than simply blocking the president, Murkowski is trying to channel the constitutional process: authorize the mission, define its scope, then fund it. It is the kind of deliberate institutional maneuvering that has defined recent Senate GOP strategy on the Iran question, block premature Democratic resolutions while quietly building a framework for legitimate oversight. Trump's message from Las Vegas President Trump, speaking Thursday in Las Vegas, projected confidence. The Associated Press reported his remarks: "I will say the war in Iran is going along swimmingly. It should be ending pretty soon." The optimism is welcome if it reflects ground truth. But "pretty soon" is not a timeline, and "swimmingly" is not a strategic objective. Tillis's complaint, that he cannot identify clear goals, suggests that at least some Senate Republicans need more than reassurance. They need a briefing, a defined endstate, and a credible path to conclusion before they will extend the legal authority the president currently operates under. None of this means the administration is in crisis. Collins and Tillis have not voted against the president yet. They have signaled conditions, not opposition. The distinction is important. Collins has shown repeatedly this session that she will work with Republican leadership when the case is made, but she expects the case to be made. The real question Congress must answer The War Powers Resolution exists for a reason. It was written after Vietnam to prevent open-ended military commitments that drift beyond their original purpose without democratic accountability. Conservatives who believe in constitutional order should welcome, not resent, senators who take the 60-day clock seriously. The president has broad authority as commander-in-chief. But that authority is not unlimited, and the founders designed a system in which Congress holds the power to declare war. If the Iran campaign is succeeding, the administration should have no trouble making the case to Congress. If the objectives are unclear even to supportive Republican senators 45 days in, that is a problem worth fixing, not papering over with party-line votes. Democrats, for their part, have tried to exploit the war powers issue for political advantage since day one, forcing repeated votes designed less to assert congressional authority than to embarrass the president. That pattern of reflexive opposition has made it easy for Republicans to dismiss every resolution as partisan theater. But the approaching deadline changes the calculus. When the 60-day mark arrives, the question stops being about Democratic messaging and starts being about the Constitution. Tillis put it plainly: sixty days matters. Collins drew a bright line. Murkowski is drafting an authorization. These are not acts of rebellion. They are acts of governance, the Senate doing what the Senate is supposed to do. The White House has roughly two weeks to bring its own party along. That means clear objectives, a credible timeline, and a willingness to submit to the process the Constitution requires. Senate Republicans have shown they can unify when leadership gives them something concrete to rally behind. The question now is whether the administration will provide it, or assume loyalty alone will carry the vote. A president who wins the argument in Congress comes out stronger than one who avoids it. That has always been true, and it is especially true when the stakes are measured in American lives and the credibility of American power abroad. The post Republican senators warn they may break with Trump on Iran war powers as 60-day deadline nears appeared first on Conservative Institute.
Republican senators warn they may break with Trump on Iran war powers as 60-day deadline nears
Two Senate Republicans who helped block Democratic efforts to rein in President Trump's military campaign in Iran now say their support has limits, and the clock is running. Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Thom Tillis of North Carolina each signaled this week that they could oppose continuing hostilities without congressional authorization if the conflict reaches the 60-day threshold set by the War Powers Resolution of 1973. The warnings land at an awkward moment. Senate Republicans just defeated a fourth Democratic attempt to invoke war powers constraints, voting 52, 47 on Wednesday to table the measure. But with the U.S.-led campaign in Iran now past its 45th day, the comfortable margin that has shielded the White House may be narrowing, not because Democrats found new votes, but because Republicans who backed the president are starting to ask harder questions. Collins, speaking at the Semafor World Economy summit, laid down a clear marker: "I have said from the very beginning that if the military hostilities in Iran continue to that 60th day, then I believe the War Powers Act is implemented, and the president would need congressional authorization to continue the war in Iran." She went further, telling Semafor that she had "always wanted this operation to be brief but successful" and that it was "very likely" she would vote against authorizing further hostilities if the deadline arrives without a resolution. Tillis raises strategic doubts Tillis, who is not running for reelection and therefore faces no primary pressure to stay in line, offered a blunter assessment in an exclusive NBC News interview. He called it "difficult" to win his support for extending the conflict past 60 days and pointed to a gap in the administration's public case. "What's concerning me now is we're coming up on the 45-day mark. Sixty days is important with respect to the War Powers Resolution, and I'm not quite clear what the strategic objectives are." That last line, "not quite clear what the strategic objectives are", is the kind of sentence that should focus minds at the Pentagon and the West Wing. Tillis is no dove. He voted to block every Democratic war powers resolution so far. When a loyal ally says he cannot identify the mission's goals approaching the halfway mark of the legal window, the administration has a communications problem at minimum. Tillis did leave himself room, saying he was "not a no" on additional military funding but would need specifics. The distinction matters. He is not grandstanding against the president. He is asking for a plan, a reasonable request from a senator whose constitutional duty includes authorizing the use of force. The War Powers Resolution and the 60-day clock The War Powers Resolution, enacted in 1973, limits the president's authority to wage war abroad without the consent of Congress. It requires the commander-in-chief to notify lawmakers within 48 hours of military action and bars armed forces from remaining engaged longer than 60 days without congressional approval. The U.S. campaign in Iran began on February 28 with joint U.S.-Israel strikes against Iranian leadership, military, and nuclear targets. That puts the 60-day mark somewhere around late April, just days away. House and Senate Democrats have forced several war powers votes since the campaign started, each time falling short as Republicans held together to reject the measures. Wednesday's vote was the latest example. Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky was the lone Republican to side with Democrats, while Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania crossed the aisle to vote with the GOP, a pattern that has repeated itself on several high-profile Senate votes this session. But the math changes if Collins and Tillis flip. With a 52, 47 majority already thin enough that a single Republican defection forced the White House to rely on Fetterman, losing two more GOP votes could put the president's war authority in genuine jeopardy. Murkowski moves behind the scenes Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska adds another layer. She has been working with other Senate Republicans on a resolution that would formally authorize military force against Iran beyond 60 days, a move that implicitly concedes Congress needs to weigh in. Murkowski reportedly wants that authorization in place before agreeing to the president's request for a boost in military funding. That approach is worth watching. Rather than simply blocking the president, Murkowski is trying to channel the constitutional process: authorize the mission, define its scope, then fund it. It is the kind of deliberate institutional maneuvering that has defined recent Senate GOP strategy on the Iran question, block premature Democratic resolutions while quietly building a framework for legitimate oversight. Trump's message from Las Vegas President Trump, speaking Thursday in Las Vegas, projected confidence. The Associated Press reported his remarks: "I will say the war in Iran is going along swimmingly. It should be ending pretty soon." The optimism is welcome if it reflects ground truth. But "pretty soon" is not a timeline, and "swimmingly" is not a strategic objective. Tillis's complaint, that he cannot identify clear goals, suggests that at least some Senate Republicans need more than reassurance. They need a briefing, a defined endstate, and a credible path to conclusion before they will extend the legal authority the president currently operates under. None of this means the administration is in crisis. Collins and Tillis have not voted against the president yet. They have signaled conditions, not opposition. The distinction is important. Collins has shown repeatedly this session that she will work with Republican leadership when the case is made, but she expects the case to be made. The real question Congress must answer The War Powers Resolution exists for a reason. It was written after Vietnam to prevent open-ended military commitments that drift beyond their original purpose without democratic accountability. Conservatives who believe in constitutional order should welcome, not resent, senators who take the 60-day clock seriously. The president has broad authority as commander-in-chief. But that authority is not unlimited, and the founders designed a system in which Congress holds the power to declare war. If the Iran campaign is succeeding, the administration should have no trouble making the case to Congress. If the objectives are unclear even to supportive Republican senators 45 days in, that is a problem worth fixing, not papering over with party-line votes. Democrats, for their part, have tried to exploit the war powers issue for political advantage since day one, forcing repeated votes designed less to assert congressional authority than to embarrass the president. That pattern of reflexive opposition has made it easy for Republicans to dismiss every resolution as partisan theater. But the approaching deadline changes the calculus. When the 60-day mark arrives, the question stops being about Democratic messaging and starts being about the Constitution. Tillis put it plainly: sixty days matters. Collins drew a bright line. Murkowski is drafting an authorization. These are not acts of rebellion. They are acts of governance, the Senate doing what the Senate is supposed to do. The White House has roughly two weeks to bring its own party along. That means clear objectives, a credible timeline, and a willingness to submit to the process the Constitution requires. Senate Republicans have shown they can unify when leadership gives them something concrete to rally behind. The question now is whether the administration will provide it, or assume loyalty alone will carry the vote. A president who wins the argument in Congress comes out stronger than one who avoids it. That has always been true, and it is especially true when the stakes are measured in American lives and the credibility of American power abroad. The post Republican senators warn they may break with Trump on Iran war powers as 60-day deadline nears appeared first on Conservative Institute.
Ro Khanna says he refused to endorse Swalwell over 'womanizing' rumors — and questions who else knew
Rep. Ro Khanna told the Daily Mail he deliberately withheld his endorsement from fellow California Democrat Eric Swalwell because he had heard persistent rumors about Swalwell's conduct with women, and now says he finds it "hard to believe" that donors and close allies never heard worse. Khanna's remarks land as Swalwell's political career collapses in real time. The 45-year-old ex-congressman resigned his seat and canceled his California gubernatorial bid this week after at least five women accused him of sexual misconduct, with some alleging rape. Both the Manhattan District Attorney's Office and the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department have opened criminal probes into the former lawmaker. The question Khanna is raising, who knew, and when, is the kind Washington hates most. It points not just at Swalwell but at the ecosystem of colleagues, bundlers, and political operatives who kept him viable for years. Khanna draws a line between gossip and abuse In a sit-down interview with the Daily Mail, Khanna was blunt about why he kept his distance. But he also tried to draw a careful distinction between private behavior and criminal conduct. "Look, I had heard rumors about womanizing. So that's why I didn't endorse him. But I had no idea about the extent of it, that he actually was having totally inappropriate relationships with subordinates, that is, against the rules, and that he was engaged in alleged date rape and rape." Khanna called the allegations "sickening and shocking" and said he was "glad he's left." He then turned his focus outward, toward the people around Swalwell who, he suggested, must have known more than they let on. "Again, I don't know the particulars, but I will say that I find it hard to believe that all these years people were close to him, or endorsing him or supporting him, that no one heard about some of this." He went further, saying those insiders "had an obligation to speak up." That phrasing matters. It shifts the moral weight from one disgraced politician to the broader circle that propped him up, a circle Khanna is pointedly not naming. The congressman also tried to explain why hearing rumors about womanizing did not, in his view, require him to sound the alarm. He framed it as a matter of proportionality. "There's a very big difference between someone's private life and someone abusing power. What Swalwell did was not engage in affairs. What Swalwell did is abuse power with his own staff and potentially rape folks." Khanna added that he does not "believe that we have an obligation to shame people if they're having an extramarital affair," calling that "morality police" territory. But he said it is his "job to speak up if there's someone who's abusing their staff or engaged in sexual assault." When asked whether he would have reported Swalwell had he known the full scope, Khanna answered simply: "Yes, of course." Gallego: 'We all heard rumors' Arizona Sen. Ruben Gallego, one of Swalwell's closest political allies, offered a similar but more guarded account. Gallego chaired Swalwell's failed 2020 presidential campaign and traveled with him to Qatar in 2021. He said this week that he did not know about Swalwell's sexual relationships with staffers. At a press conference, Gallego acknowledged the open secret that Khanna also referenced. "Look, we all heard rumors in Washington, D.C., about Eric Swalwell for many years," Gallego said. But he added: "I never saw him engage in any of the predatory behavior, harassment, sexual assault." The gap between those two sentences is worth examining. Rumors circulated "for many years." Gallego ran a presidential campaign for the man. Yet he says he saw nothing. That may well be true. But it raises the same uncomfortable question Khanna is posing: if everyone heard the rumors, why did no one look harder? It is a pattern familiar to anyone who watched the Democratic Party's internal divisions play out on other fronts, a willingness to tolerate problems within the ranks until they become politically untenable. The accusations and the criminal probes The allegations against Swalwell are severe. At least five women have accused the former congressman of sexual misconduct. One of them, Lonna Drewes, appeared at a news conference in Beverly Hills on Tuesday, April 14, 2026, where she accused Swalwell of drugging and date-raping her in 2018. Swalwell denied wrongdoing but acknowledged making "mistakes in judgment" and apologized to his wife, Brittany Watts. The full text of his denial has not been made public in available reporting. The political fallout was swift and decisive. AP News reported that Democratic rivals, congressional allies, and labor unions quickly abandoned Swalwell and urged him to exit the governor's race. Several House Democrats went further, calling for his resignation from Congress, with some saying they would support expelling him. "I will fight the serious, false allegations that have been made, but that's my fight, not a campaign's," Swalwell said as he suspended his gubernatorial campaign. Rep. Pramila Jayapal framed the matter as bipartisan: "This is not a partisan issue. This cuts across party lines." Perhaps. But it is worth noting how quickly Democrats moved to distance themselves once the story broke, and how slowly they moved before that, when the rumors were just rumors and Swalwell was still a useful vote and fundraiser. The same party that has seen Pelosi criticize fellow Democrats over other matters has rarely turned that scrutiny inward on personal conduct until forced. Two law enforcement agencies are now involved. Both the Manhattan District Attorney's Office and the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department have opened criminal probes into the former lawmaker. The basis for those investigations, whether they stem from formal complaints by accusers or referrals from other sources, has not been publicly detailed. The 'culture' question and what comes next Khanna used the Swalwell case to call for institutional reform. He said the situation "shows that the culture needs to change in Congress, that there needs to be stricter rules for reporting when staff members are abused." That is a fair point as far as it goes. But it also raises an obvious follow-up: if the culture is broken, who broke it? Swalwell served in Congress for over a decade. He ran for president. He sat on the House Intelligence Committee. He was a regular on cable news. None of that happens without a support network of donors, endorsers, and party leaders who vouch for you along the way. Khanna himself acknowledged that dynamic. "I had heard about the womanizing enough for me to say, 'I'm not going to endorse him,'" he said, "but my guess is that there may have been other people who knew that he was actually engaged in abuse of his own staff." That guess deserves answers. Who were those people? What did they know? And why did they stay quiet? These are the questions that distinguish a scandal from an accountability reckoning. The pattern of Democratic leaders clashing with their own leadership on policy matters is well documented. Whether that same willingness to break ranks extends to policing personal misconduct within the caucus remains an open question. Khanna himself has never been shy about making bold public demands. His willingness to speak now, after Swalwell's career is already finished, is notable. But speaking up after the fact is not the same as blowing the whistle when it matters. The accountability gap Swalwell is gone from Congress. His gubernatorial campaign is dead. Criminal investigators in two jurisdictions are reviewing the allegations. For the accusers, Drewes and the other women, that may eventually bring some measure of justice. But Khanna's remarks point to a second layer of failure that no criminal probe will address. If rumors about Swalwell's behavior circulated in Washington for years, and both Khanna and Gallego say they did, then the system that was supposed to protect staffers and hold members accountable failed long before the first news conference in Beverly Hills. Swalwell acknowledged "mistakes in judgment." His colleagues acknowledged hearing rumors. Nobody acknowledged doing anything about it until the story went public and the political cost became unbearable. That is not accountability. That is damage control dressed up as conscience. And until the people who heard the rumors and said nothing are willing to answer for their silence, the "culture change" Khanna is calling for will remain exactly what it has always been in Washington, a talking point for the day after. The post Ro Khanna says he refused to endorse Swalwell over 'womanizing' rumors — and questions who else knew appeared first on Conservative Institute.
Ro Khanna says he refused to endorse Swalwell over 'womanizing' rumors — and questions who else knew
Rep. Ro Khanna told the Daily Mail he deliberately withheld his endorsement from fellow California Democrat Eric Swalwell because he had heard persistent rumors about Swalwell's conduct with women, and now says he finds it "hard to believe" that donors and close allies never heard worse. Khanna's remarks land as Swalwell's political career collapses in real time. The 45-year-old ex-congressman resigned his seat and canceled his California gubernatorial bid this week after at least five women accused him of sexual misconduct, with some alleging rape. Both the Manhattan District Attorney's Office and the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department have opened criminal probes into the former lawmaker. The question Khanna is raising, who knew, and when, is the kind Washington hates most. It points not just at Swalwell but at the ecosystem of colleagues, bundlers, and political operatives who kept him viable for years. Khanna draws a line between gossip and abuse In a sit-down interview with the Daily Mail, Khanna was blunt about why he kept his distance. But he also tried to draw a careful distinction between private behavior and criminal conduct. "Look, I had heard rumors about womanizing. So that's why I didn't endorse him. But I had no idea about the extent of it, that he actually was having totally inappropriate relationships with subordinates, that is, against the rules, and that he was engaged in alleged date rape and rape." Khanna called the allegations "sickening and shocking" and said he was "glad he's left." He then turned his focus outward, toward the people around Swalwell who, he suggested, must have known more than they let on. "Again, I don't know the particulars, but I will say that I find it hard to believe that all these years people were close to him, or endorsing him or supporting him, that no one heard about some of this." He went further, saying those insiders "had an obligation to speak up." That phrasing matters. It shifts the moral weight from one disgraced politician to the broader circle that propped him up, a circle Khanna is pointedly not naming. The congressman also tried to explain why hearing rumors about womanizing did not, in his view, require him to sound the alarm. He framed it as a matter of proportionality. "There's a very big difference between someone's private life and someone abusing power. What Swalwell did was not engage in affairs. What Swalwell did is abuse power with his own staff and potentially rape folks." Khanna added that he does not "believe that we have an obligation to shame people if they're having an extramarital affair," calling that "morality police" territory. But he said it is his "job to speak up if there's someone who's abusing their staff or engaged in sexual assault." When asked whether he would have reported Swalwell had he known the full scope, Khanna answered simply: "Yes, of course." Gallego: 'We all heard rumors' Arizona Sen. Ruben Gallego, one of Swalwell's closest political allies, offered a similar but more guarded account. Gallego chaired Swalwell's failed 2020 presidential campaign and traveled with him to Qatar in 2021. He said this week that he did not know about Swalwell's sexual relationships with staffers. At a press conference, Gallego acknowledged the open secret that Khanna also referenced. "Look, we all heard rumors in Washington, D.C., about Eric Swalwell for many years," Gallego said. But he added: "I never saw him engage in any of the predatory behavior, harassment, sexual assault." The gap between those two sentences is worth examining. Rumors circulated "for many years." Gallego ran a presidential campaign for the man. Yet he says he saw nothing. That may well be true. But it raises the same uncomfortable question Khanna is posing: if everyone heard the rumors, why did no one look harder? It is a pattern familiar to anyone who watched the Democratic Party's internal divisions play out on other fronts, a willingness to tolerate problems within the ranks until they become politically untenable. The accusations and the criminal probes The allegations against Swalwell are severe. At least five women have accused the former congressman of sexual misconduct. One of them, Lonna Drewes, appeared at a news conference in Beverly Hills on Tuesday, April 14, 2026, where she accused Swalwell of drugging and date-raping her in 2018. Swalwell denied wrongdoing but acknowledged making "mistakes in judgment" and apologized to his wife, Brittany Watts. The full text of his denial has not been made public in available reporting. The political fallout was swift and decisive. AP News reported that Democratic rivals, congressional allies, and labor unions quickly abandoned Swalwell and urged him to exit the governor's race. Several House Democrats went further, calling for his resignation from Congress, with some saying they would support expelling him. "I will fight the serious, false allegations that have been made, but that's my fight, not a campaign's," Swalwell said as he suspended his gubernatorial campaign. Rep. Pramila Jayapal framed the matter as bipartisan: "This is not a partisan issue. This cuts across party lines." Perhaps. But it is worth noting how quickly Democrats moved to distance themselves once the story broke, and how slowly they moved before that, when the rumors were just rumors and Swalwell was still a useful vote and fundraiser. The same party that has seen Pelosi criticize fellow Democrats over other matters has rarely turned that scrutiny inward on personal conduct until forced. Two law enforcement agencies are now involved. Both the Manhattan District Attorney's Office and the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department have opened criminal probes into the former lawmaker. The basis for those investigations, whether they stem from formal complaints by accusers or referrals from other sources, has not been publicly detailed. The 'culture' question and what comes next Khanna used the Swalwell case to call for institutional reform. He said the situation "shows that the culture needs to change in Congress, that there needs to be stricter rules for reporting when staff members are abused." That is a fair point as far as it goes. But it also raises an obvious follow-up: if the culture is broken, who broke it? Swalwell served in Congress for over a decade. He ran for president. He sat on the House Intelligence Committee. He was a regular on cable news. None of that happens without a support network of donors, endorsers, and party leaders who vouch for you along the way. Khanna himself acknowledged that dynamic. "I had heard about the womanizing enough for me to say, 'I'm not going to endorse him,'" he said, "but my guess is that there may have been other people who knew that he was actually engaged in abuse of his own staff." That guess deserves answers. Who were those people? What did they know? And why did they stay quiet? These are the questions that distinguish a scandal from an accountability reckoning. The pattern of Democratic leaders clashing with their own leadership on policy matters is well documented. Whether that same willingness to break ranks extends to policing personal misconduct within the caucus remains an open question. Khanna himself has never been shy about making bold public demands. His willingness to speak now, after Swalwell's career is already finished, is notable. But speaking up after the fact is not the same as blowing the whistle when it matters. The accountability gap Swalwell is gone from Congress. His gubernatorial campaign is dead. Criminal investigators in two jurisdictions are reviewing the allegations. For the accusers, Drewes and the other women, that may eventually bring some measure of justice. But Khanna's remarks point to a second layer of failure that no criminal probe will address. If rumors about Swalwell's behavior circulated in Washington for years, and both Khanna and Gallego say they did, then the system that was supposed to protect staffers and hold members accountable failed long before the first news conference in Beverly Hills. Swalwell acknowledged "mistakes in judgment." His colleagues acknowledged hearing rumors. Nobody acknowledged doing anything about it until the story went public and the political cost became unbearable. That is not accountability. That is damage control dressed up as conscience. And until the people who heard the rumors and said nothing are willing to answer for their silence, the "culture change" Khanna is calling for will remain exactly what it has always been in Washington, a talking point for the day after. The post Ro Khanna says he refused to endorse Swalwell over 'womanizing' rumors — and questions who else knew appeared first on Conservative Institute.
Cory Mills rejects calls to resign, insists he is nothing like Swalwell
Florida Republican Cory Mills is refusing to step down from Congress despite mounting pressure from lawmakers in both parties, a new House Ethics Committee investigation, and a trail of allegations that includes a domestic disturbance call, a protective order, and an ex-girlfriend's accusation that he threatened to release intimate images of her. Mills went on offense Tuesday, telling NewsNation he rejects any comparison to Eric Swalwell, the California Democrat who resigned the same day alongside Republican Tony Gonzalez after a wave of sexual misconduct accusations swept Capitol Hill. The Daily Mail reported that Mills dismissed the pressure campaign as partisan payback. The defiance lands in a Congress already reeling from the Swalwell and Gonzalez resignations, and from growing bipartisan appetite to hold members accountable for personal conduct. Mills faces allegations of assault, sexual coercion, stolen valor, and financial misconduct. A bipartisan House Ethics Committee subcommittee has been formed to investigate, and that inquiry remains ongoing. Mills speaks out: 'Not even a fair comparison' Mills drew a sharp line between himself and the departed Swalwell on Tuesday, telling NewsNation: "One, I'm not married, so there's one thing. Two, I've never sexually harassed and or have any complaints by any staffers or interns on the Hill. It's just not even a fair comparison." He added that the calls for his removal are "obviously a political, Democratic tit-for-tat." Swalwell's resignation followed a string of harassment allegations that had been building for weeks, and Gonzalez left under similar pressure. Mills wants no part of that category. But the allegations against him are not trivial, and they do not come exclusively from Democrats. The allegations: police calls, a protective order, and a pageant winner's accusation Last February, DC police were dispatched to Mills' residence after his girlfriend, Sarah Raviani, called 911 to report an alleged domestic disturbance. Raviani later said she was not assaulted, and no charges were brought. Then in October, Lindsey Langston, the 2024 winner of the Miss United States pageant and Mills' ex-girlfriend, accused the congressman of threatening to release nude images and videos of her after their breakup. A Florida judge subsequently granted Langston a protective order against Mills. As of September 2025, Mills was still undergoing legal proceedings related to a divorce. His longtime chief of staff and chief counsel, Catherine Treadwell, abruptly resigned last week. Her resignation letter thanked her co-workers but ended with a line that has drawn attention on Capitol Hill: "The horrors persist, but I do not." Treadwell did not elaborate publicly, and the exact circumstances behind her departure remain unclear. But when a senior staffer who has served a member for years walks out with that kind of parting shot, it raises questions no press release can answer. Bipartisan pressure builds The calls for Mills to go are not limited to the usual progressive suspects. GOP Congresswoman Nancy Mace said this week that Mills "need[s] to go." Speaker Mike Johnson said he would be "looking into" the allegations. Those are not the words of a leadership team circling the wagons. On the Democratic side, Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez recently posted on X, naming Mills alongside Swalwell, Gonzalez, and Florida Congresswoman Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick, who faces separate pressure over allegations she stole $5 million in COVID relief funds to aid her re-election: "[Congress] should not tolerate representatives who abuse staff, betray public trust for personal gain, and generally violate their oath of office. Reps. Swalwell, Gonzales, Cherfilus-McCormick, and Mills should resign. If they refuse, they should be expelled. Americans deserve better and Congress must hold our members accountable." Progressive Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez struck a similar note Tuesday. She voiced support for the departures of Swalwell and Gonzalez and added Mills to her list. Other House Democrats have signaled they would vote to expel members facing sexual misconduct allegations, a position that now extends across the aisle in Mills' case. Ocasio-Cortez told reporters: "I'm glad that Eric Swalwell is leaving. I'm glad that Tony Gonzalez is leaving. Frankly, I think Cory Mills should be on that list as well." How hard is expulsion, and how rare? Expelling a House member requires a two-thirds vote, a threshold that has been met only six times in the chamber's history. The most recent case was former New York Congressman George Santos in 2023, after a sprawling fraud and identity-theft scandal that left even his own party unable to defend him. Mills is a long way from that vote count. He holds a Trump endorsement for his re-election bid, and the GOP's narrow majority makes every seat a strategic calculation. But the Ethics Committee subcommittee investigation is active, and the range of claims, assault, sexual coercion, stolen valor, financial misconduct, is wide enough to keep the story alive for months. The broader climate on Capitol Hill has shifted. Democrats are already struggling to manage the Cherfilus-McCormick ethics trial and the fallout from Swalwell's departure. Republicans, meanwhile, face their own reckoning: if the party demands accountability from the other side, it cannot look the other way when the allegations hit closer to home. The Swalwell comparison Mills wants to avoid Mills' insistence that he does not belong in "the same category as Swalwell and his allies" is clearly strategic. Swalwell resigned after accusations that he had sexual relationships with staff, a pattern of conduct that had become indefensible. Mills' allegations are different in kind but no less serious in their implications. A 911 call, a protective order from a state judge, and a chief of staff who quit with a cryptic farewell do not add up to a clean bill of health. Mills' office has been contacted for comment beyond his Tuesday statements. Swalwell's own record of controversy stretches back years, and Mills is right that the two cases are not identical. But the question is not whether he is Eric Swalwell. The question is whether the facts warrant an ethics investigation, and the bipartisan committee has already answered that one. What remains unanswered Several key questions remain open. The specific allegations the Ethics subcommittee is examining have not been publicly detailed. The circumstances of Treadwell's resignation, beyond her pointed farewell, are unexplained. The status of Mills' divorce proceedings beyond the September 2025 reference is unclear. And the stolen valor and financial misconduct claims have not been fleshed out in public filings. Mills has every right to defend himself and to insist on due process. No one should be run out of office on allegations alone. But when Congress probes a member's conduct, the public deserves transparency, not deflection dressed up as defiance. Accountability is not a Democratic value or a Republican value. It is the baseline. If Mills has answers, the Ethics Committee is the place to give them, not cable news. The post Cory Mills rejects calls to resign, insists he is nothing like Swalwell appeared first on Conservative Institute.
Senate rejects Democrat bid to restrict Trump's Iran military authority as Fetterman sides with GOP again
The Senate voted down a Democratic war powers resolution on Wednesday, defeating an effort to force President Donald Trump to withdraw U.S. forces from hostilities in Iran without explicit congressional authorization. The final tally, 47 to 52, marked the fourth time this year that Senate Democrats failed to curb the president's military authority over the Iran conflict, The Independent reported. The measure, sponsored by Sen. Tammy Duckworth, needed 51 votes to pass. It fell short in part because Pennsylvania Democrat John Fetterman crossed party lines to vote with Republicans, continuing a pattern that has made him one of the most unpredictable members of his caucus. On the other side of the aisle, Kentucky Republican Rand Paul was the only member of his party to break ranks and vote with Democrats. West Virginia Sen. Jim Justice was absent. For Democrats, the result was another dead end. For the White House, it was another signal that the Republican conference remains unified behind the president's handling of the Iran campaign, at least for now. Fetterman's break with his party, again Fetterman's vote did not come as a surprise. He had telegraphed his position weeks earlier, telling Fox News on April 9 that he would oppose any new War Powers push. His reasoning was blunt: the military should be allowed to finish what it started. As Fetterman put it on Fox News: "We're not even 40 days into this and now, now I'm reading that they're now [going] to force another War Powers vote, and I will vote against that now, because we have to stand [with] our military to allow them to accomplish, you know, the goals of Epic Fury." That kind of language, standing with the military, backing the mission, is not what Democratic leadership wants to hear from its own members while it wages a messaging campaign against the president's Iran policy. But Fetterman has shown repeatedly that he is willing to side with Republicans when he believes the issue warrants it, regardless of the political cost within his own party. His willingness to break with his caucus stands in contrast to the lockstep discipline Democrats have shown on other recent Senate votes. Every Senate Democrat voted against a photo ID requirement to prevent election fraud in a separate floor fight, the kind of unified opposition that makes Fetterman's defection on Iran all the more conspicuous. Democrats keep forcing votes, and keep losing Wednesday's defeat was not a one-off. The Washington Times reported that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has vowed to keep forcing war powers votes until the Iran conflict ends or Congress formally limits the president's authority. Schumer said ten war powers resolutions had been filed so far, and five had already failed across both chambers since the war began on February 28. "Democrats will continue to force votes on multiple war powers resolutions to check Mr. Trump's power by forcing him to seek congressional approval for further military action in Iran," Schumer said, urging Republicans: "Join us on this resolution and end the war once and for all." The strategy is clear enough: keep the votes coming, keep the pressure on vulnerable Republicans, and build a public record of GOP support for the conflict as midterm season approaches. Whether it works is another question. So far, the math has not moved in Democrats' favor. Duckworth, who sponsored the resolution, framed the vote as an indictment of Republican complicity. In a statement, she said: "While Trump would rather the American people ignore what they're seeing with their own eyes, it's clear that none of this is making America safer, bringing prices down or ending wars like he promised. Americans are sick and tired of being lied to, and Republicans cannot continue to sit by and abdicate their responsibilities as Trump continues to spiral out of control at the expense of our national security." That kind of rhetoric plays well on cable news. But when 52 senators, including one Democrat, vote to keep the president's hands free, the rhetoric runs headlong into political reality. Some Republicans eye the clock The vote may have held, but cracks are forming beneath the surface. AP News reported that several Republicans who voted against the resolution are nonetheless signaling concern about the war's duration. Some have said Congress may need to vote on a formal authorization of military force if the conflict continues past the 60-day War Powers Act deadline. North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis was direct about the timeline. After the 60-day or 90-day deadline, "it's time to fish or cut bait," Tillis said, urging the administration to prepare an authorization and funding strategy. Maine Sen. Susan Collins echoed that position: "If this conflict exceeds the 60 days specified in the War Powers Act, or if the President deploys troops on the ground, I believe that Congress should have to authorize those actions." Those are not hostile voices. Tillis and Collins both voted with the president on Wednesday. But their comments suggest the White House has a finite window of goodwill, and that the next war powers vote, whenever Schumer forces it, could look different if the administration has not secured a deal or a clear path forward. That dynamic mirrors the broader challenge Republicans face in maintaining party unity across high-stakes votes. Collins has shown a willingness to be the decisive Republican vote on contentious legislation before, and her conditional support here is worth watching. Diplomacy stalls in Pakistan The Senate vote came against the backdrop of failed diplomatic talks. Over the weekend, Vice President JD Vance led a U.S. delegation to Islamabad, Pakistan, for negotiations aimed at brokering a longer peace agreement with Iran. Vance emerged afterward and declared that Iranian officials had declined the U.S.'s final offer. The sticking point, according to subsequent comments from the administration, was Iran's nuclear program. The Trump administration demanded that Iran give up all current and future uranium enrichment capabilities and surrender any remaining nuclear material. Iran refused. President Trump had set the stage for the talks with a Truth Social post last week that left little room for ambiguity about the stakes. "A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again," Trump wrote. "I don't want that to happen, but it probably will. However, now that we have Complete and Total Regime Change, where different, smarter, and less radicalized minds prevail, maybe something revolutionarily wonderful can happen, WHO KNOWS?" The collapse of talks in Islamabad made Wednesday's vote both more predictable and more significant. Democrats argued the failed negotiations proved the administration's approach was not working. Republicans countered that pulling the rug out from under the military mid-campaign would be the worst possible response to a diplomatic setback. GOP anxiety below the surface While Senate Republicans held the line, not all members of the broader party are comfortable. NBC News published a report Wednesday about a private House Republican group chat that revealed unease among members in competitive districts. One House Republican in a purple district, as quoted by NBC News, said: "The Iran war is affecting our prices. This is something that needs to be addressed." The same member added: "And when we're talking about eliminating an entire civilization, or whatever other thing that they're doing, that's a lot of time we're spending putting out fires." Trump pollster John McLaughlin offered a candid assessment: "The midterms are winnable, but the Republicans need a message and a strategy and right now, the voters don't see a message or a strategy." That kind of frank talk from inside the president's own polling operation suggests the White House knows the political ground is not as solid as the Senate vote count implies. Holding 52 votes today is not the same as holding them in three months, especially if the conflict drags on without a clear resolution or congressional buy-in. The challenge is familiar. Republicans have shown they can maintain discipline on individual floor votes, as all 50 Republican senators demonstrated when they backed the SAVE Act. But sustained unity on a foreign military campaign, with rising costs, uncertain timelines, and midterm elections on the horizon, is a different test entirely. The calls for Trump's removal via the 25th Amendment, which came from some Democrats and even former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, have gone nowhere. But they reflect the intensity of the political environment surrounding the Iran conflict. Breitbart noted that some Republicans may reconsider their support if the war continues past the War Powers Act deadline, a warning that Wednesday's vote, however decisive it looked, may not be the final word. Meanwhile, House Republicans have been demanding Senate showdowns on a range of issues, from voter ID legislation to government spending. The Iran conflict now sits alongside those fights as another front where party discipline will be tested in the months ahead. The bottom line Democrats wanted to tie the president's hands. They failed, again. Fetterman's crossover vote made the margin wider and the embarrassment sharper. But the real question is not whether Wednesday's resolution passed. It is whether the next one will. Republican senators gave the president room to operate. Some of them made clear that room has an expiration date. The administration would be wise to use it. The post Senate rejects Democrat bid to restrict Trump's Iran military authority as Fetterman sides with GOP again appeared first on Conservative Institute.
Senate rejects Democrat bid to restrict Trump's Iran military authority as Fetterman sides with GOP again
The Senate voted down a Democratic war powers resolution on Wednesday, defeating an effort to force President Donald Trump to withdraw U.S. forces from hostilities in Iran without explicit congressional authorization. The final tally, 47 to 52, marked the fourth time this year that Senate Democrats failed to curb the president's military authority over the Iran conflict, The Independent reported. The measure, sponsored by Sen. Tammy Duckworth, needed 51 votes to pass. It fell short in part because Pennsylvania Democrat John Fetterman crossed party lines to vote with Republicans, continuing a pattern that has made him one of the most unpredictable members of his caucus. On the other side of the aisle, Kentucky Republican Rand Paul was the only member of his party to break ranks and vote with Democrats. West Virginia Sen. Jim Justice was absent. For Democrats, the result was another dead end. For the White House, it was another signal that the Republican conference remains unified behind the president's handling of the Iran campaign, at least for now. Fetterman's break with his party, again Fetterman's vote did not come as a surprise. He had telegraphed his position weeks earlier, telling Fox News on April 9 that he would oppose any new War Powers push. His reasoning was blunt: the military should be allowed to finish what it started. As Fetterman put it on Fox News: "We're not even 40 days into this and now, now I'm reading that they're now [going] to force another War Powers vote, and I will vote against that now, because we have to stand [with] our military to allow them to accomplish, you know, the goals of Epic Fury." That kind of language, standing with the military, backing the mission, is not what Democratic leadership wants to hear from its own members while it wages a messaging campaign against the president's Iran policy. But Fetterman has shown repeatedly that he is willing to side with Republicans when he believes the issue warrants it, regardless of the political cost within his own party. His willingness to break with his caucus stands in contrast to the lockstep discipline Democrats have shown on other recent Senate votes. Every Senate Democrat voted against a photo ID requirement to prevent election fraud in a separate floor fight, the kind of unified opposition that makes Fetterman's defection on Iran all the more conspicuous. Democrats keep forcing votes, and keep losing Wednesday's defeat was not a one-off. The Washington Times reported that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has vowed to keep forcing war powers votes until the Iran conflict ends or Congress formally limits the president's authority. Schumer said ten war powers resolutions had been filed so far, and five had already failed across both chambers since the war began on February 28. "Democrats will continue to force votes on multiple war powers resolutions to check Mr. Trump's power by forcing him to seek congressional approval for further military action in Iran," Schumer said, urging Republicans: "Join us on this resolution and end the war once and for all." The strategy is clear enough: keep the votes coming, keep the pressure on vulnerable Republicans, and build a public record of GOP support for the conflict as midterm season approaches. Whether it works is another question. So far, the math has not moved in Democrats' favor. Duckworth, who sponsored the resolution, framed the vote as an indictment of Republican complicity. In a statement, she said: "While Trump would rather the American people ignore what they're seeing with their own eyes, it's clear that none of this is making America safer, bringing prices down or ending wars like he promised. Americans are sick and tired of being lied to, and Republicans cannot continue to sit by and abdicate their responsibilities as Trump continues to spiral out of control at the expense of our national security." That kind of rhetoric plays well on cable news. But when 52 senators, including one Democrat, vote to keep the president's hands free, the rhetoric runs headlong into political reality. Some Republicans eye the clock The vote may have held, but cracks are forming beneath the surface. AP News reported that several Republicans who voted against the resolution are nonetheless signaling concern about the war's duration. Some have said Congress may need to vote on a formal authorization of military force if the conflict continues past the 60-day War Powers Act deadline. North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis was direct about the timeline. After the 60-day or 90-day deadline, "it's time to fish or cut bait," Tillis said, urging the administration to prepare an authorization and funding strategy. Maine Sen. Susan Collins echoed that position: "If this conflict exceeds the 60 days specified in the War Powers Act, or if the President deploys troops on the ground, I believe that Congress should have to authorize those actions." Those are not hostile voices. Tillis and Collins both voted with the president on Wednesday. But their comments suggest the White House has a finite window of goodwill, and that the next war powers vote, whenever Schumer forces it, could look different if the administration has not secured a deal or a clear path forward. That dynamic mirrors the broader challenge Republicans face in maintaining party unity across high-stakes votes. Collins has shown a willingness to be the decisive Republican vote on contentious legislation before, and her conditional support here is worth watching. Diplomacy stalls in Pakistan The Senate vote came against the backdrop of failed diplomatic talks. Over the weekend, Vice President JD Vance led a U.S. delegation to Islamabad, Pakistan, for negotiations aimed at brokering a longer peace agreement with Iran. Vance emerged afterward and declared that Iranian officials had declined the U.S.'s final offer. The sticking point, according to subsequent comments from the administration, was Iran's nuclear program. The Trump administration demanded that Iran give up all current and future uranium enrichment capabilities and surrender any remaining nuclear material. Iran refused. President Trump had set the stage for the talks with a Truth Social post last week that left little room for ambiguity about the stakes. "A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again," Trump wrote. "I don't want that to happen, but it probably will. However, now that we have Complete and Total Regime Change, where different, smarter, and less radicalized minds prevail, maybe something revolutionarily wonderful can happen, WHO KNOWS?" The collapse of talks in Islamabad made Wednesday's vote both more predictable and more significant. Democrats argued the failed negotiations proved the administration's approach was not working. Republicans countered that pulling the rug out from under the military mid-campaign would be the worst possible response to a diplomatic setback. GOP anxiety below the surface While Senate Republicans held the line, not all members of the broader party are comfortable. NBC News published a report Wednesday about a private House Republican group chat that revealed unease among members in competitive districts. One House Republican in a purple district, as quoted by NBC News, said: "The Iran war is affecting our prices. This is something that needs to be addressed." The same member added: "And when we're talking about eliminating an entire civilization, or whatever other thing that they're doing, that's a lot of time we're spending putting out fires." Trump pollster John McLaughlin offered a candid assessment: "The midterms are winnable, but the Republicans need a message and a strategy and right now, the voters don't see a message or a strategy." That kind of frank talk from inside the president's own polling operation suggests the White House knows the political ground is not as solid as the Senate vote count implies. Holding 52 votes today is not the same as holding them in three months, especially if the conflict drags on without a clear resolution or congressional buy-in. The challenge is familiar. Republicans have shown they can maintain discipline on individual floor votes, as all 50 Republican senators demonstrated when they backed the SAVE Act. But sustained unity on a foreign military campaign, with rising costs, uncertain timelines, and midterm elections on the horizon, is a different test entirely. The calls for Trump's removal via the 25th Amendment, which came from some Democrats and even former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, have gone nowhere. But they reflect the intensity of the political environment surrounding the Iran conflict. Breitbart noted that some Republicans may reconsider their support if the war continues past the War Powers Act deadline, a warning that Wednesday's vote, however decisive it looked, may not be the final word. Meanwhile, House Republicans have been demanding Senate showdowns on a range of issues, from voter ID legislation to government spending. The Iran conflict now sits alongside those fights as another front where party discipline will be tested in the months ahead. The bottom line Democrats wanted to tie the president's hands. They failed, again. Fetterman's crossover vote made the margin wider and the embarrassment sharper. But the real question is not whether Wednesday's resolution passed. It is whether the next one will. Republican senators gave the president room to operate. Some of them made clear that room has an expiration date. The administration would be wise to use it. The post Senate rejects Democrat bid to restrict Trump's Iran military authority as Fetterman sides with GOP again appeared first on Conservative Institute.
Senate GOP blocks Democrats' Iran withdrawal push but signals war powers deadline is approaching
The Republican-led Senate voted 47-52 on Wednesday to reject a Democratic resolution that would have forced the withdrawal of U.S. forces from the conflict in Iran absent explicit congressional authorization, the fourth time this year the chamber has turned back such an effort. But the margin of victory masked a growing restlessness within GOP ranks, as several Republican senators made clear that the administration's window to operate without a formal war vote is closing fast. The resolution, introduced by Sen. Tammy Duckworth of Illinois, an Iraq war veteran who lost both legs in combat, would have required the president to pull U.S. armed forces out of hostilities within or against Iran unless Congress declared war or passed a specific authorization for the use of military force. Democrats framed the measure as a constitutional obligation. Republicans called it premature and potentially dangerous to troops in the field. What matters now is not the vote that failed but the votes that may come next. Under the War Powers Act of 1973, Congress must either declare war or authorize the use of force within 60 days of its start, a deadline that arrives at the end of this month. The law allows a potential 30-day extension, but the Associated Press reported that lawmakers in both parties have made clear they want the administration to lay out a plan for ending the conflict soon. Republicans hold the line, with conditions Senate Majority Leader John Thune struck a careful balance after the vote, crediting the military's performance while putting the White House on notice. He told reporters that "at this point most of us I think feel pretty good about what the military has achieved," but added a pointed qualifier: "They do need a plan for how to wind this down, how to get an outcome that actually leads to a safer, more secure Middle East and, by extension, a stronger national security position for the United States." Thune called an eventual White House request for war funding, which could run into the hundreds of billions of dollars, an "inflection point" and acknowledged the "power that Congress has to influence what happens there." That language was not idle. It was a signal that the Senate majority leader sees the funding vote as a leverage point, not a rubber stamp. Sen. Jim Lankford of Oklahoma was more direct. He said the funding request will "be the big vote," adding: "Is it going to happen or is it not going to happen?" In other words, the real congressional test is not a war powers resolution that everyone knows will fail on party lines. It is the moment the administration asks for money, and Congress has to decide what conditions to attach. Several Republican senators went further, openly stating that the president's authority has limits. Sen. Susan Collins of Maine said presidential power "is not unlimited as commander in chief." "If this conflict exceeds the 60 days specified in the War Powers Act, or if the President deploys troops on the ground, I believe that Congress should have to authorize those actions." Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri said he would like to see the war end in the coming weeks, but if it does not, "at the end of 60 days, I think we need to vote on a military authorization." Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina said that after the 60-day or 90-day deadline, "it's time to fish or cut bait," and urged the administration to prepare a formal authorization of military force and a funding strategy. Murkowski drafts a GOP alternative Perhaps the most significant behind-the-scenes development is the work of Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, who has been talking to Republican colleagues about drafting a resolution that would authorize the conflict beyond the 60-day deadline, on Congress's terms. Murkowski has not released the text, but she said the goal is to ensure the American people "know the limits and objectives of this military operation." Murkowski has been one of the most vocal Republicans on the war powers question. At the beginning of March, she said plainly: "There is no question that the president should have sought authorization from Congress before striking Iran on this scale, likewise bringing in our allies ahead of time as they now are equally in danger." Yet last month, she opposed the Democratic measures, arguing they would hurt troops by prompting an abrupt withdrawal. That distinction, between demanding congressional authority and forcing an immediate pullout, is where most Senate Republicans have landed. Sen. John Curtis of Utah said he had reviewed Murkowski's draft and provided feedback, though he declined to share details. "I think we are all watching," Curtis said, adding that he hopes the war ends before the deadline forces the question. Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana captured the prevailing GOP mood with characteristic bluntness. Congress, he said, is not going to "jump up and say that's it, it's one second past 60 days, everybody come home." "I want to see us achieve our objective in Iran. And then I want to see us get out." Kennedy also suggested that some of those pushing for a vote simply want to embarrass the president rather than exercise genuine constitutional oversight. Democrats vow to keep forcing the issue Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, whose political standing has been under pressure from multiple directions, cast the vote in starkly partisan terms, saying "the American people literally cannot afford for Republicans to forgo another opportunity to work with Democrats to end Trump's disastrous war." Democrats have vowed to keep forcing votes on the Senate floor as long as the war continues. The Washington Times reported that Schumer promised to bring multiple war powers resolutions forward to check the president's authority by forcing him to seek congressional approval for further military action. "Join us on this resolution and end the war once and for all," Schumer said. But the strategy has produced the same result each time. Five war powers resolutions related to Iran have now failed in Congress since the conflict began on February 28, and Democrats have not come close to peeling off enough Republican votes to change the outcome. Schumer's inability to move the needle, even as some Republicans express public unease, raises the question of whether these votes are serious legislative efforts or messaging exercises designed for campaign ads. It is worth noting that Schumer has struggled to articulate a coherent position on the conflict's military objectives even as he demands its end. Calling for withdrawal while declining to acknowledge the strategic value of degrading Iran's nuclear capabilities is not a serious foreign policy stance. It is a posture. Cross-party defections tell their own story Just The News reported that the vote featured the now-familiar cross-party defections: Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, a Democrat, voted with Republicans to block the measure, while Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, a Republican, voted with Democrats in favor of it. Those two have been the consistent outliers on every Iran war powers vote this year. Fetterman's repeated breaks with his party on national security matters have drawn sharp criticism from the Democratic base. Paul's vote reflects his long-standing non-interventionist principles. Neither defection changed the math. An earlier vote in March, on a resolution introduced by Sen. Tim Kaine, failed 47-53 along similar lines. Sen. Markwayne Mullin said at the time, "I won't hamstring President Trump." Sen. Andy Kim countered that "today's vote sends us down a dangerous path into a potentially endless war." The pattern has held through every iteration: Democrats frame the conflict as unauthorized and reckless; Republicans frame withdrawal resolutions as dangerous to the mission and the troops. The real test is weeks away A war powers vote in the House is expected this week, though the outcome remains uncertain. But the more consequential moment, the one multiple Republican senators are now openly pointing toward, is the 60-day deadline at the end of the month and the war funding request that will follow. Thune, Tillis, Collins, Hawley, Murkowski, and Lankford have all, in different ways, signaled that the current posture cannot hold indefinitely. The question is whether the administration moves first with a credible authorization request and a clear exit framework, or whether Congress is forced to act on its own terms. The difference between those two scenarios is the difference between orderly governance and a messy confrontation that benefits no one. Iran's nuclear capabilities make this conflict different from the open-ended deployments that eroded public trust in previous administrations. The stakes are real. But so is the constitutional requirement that Congress, not the executive alone, decides when America goes to war and how long it stays. Republicans were right to reject a resolution designed more to embarrass the president than to protect American interests. They will also be right to insist, when the deadline arrives, that the Constitution means what it says. The post Senate GOP blocks Democrats' Iran withdrawal push but signals war powers deadline is approaching appeared first on Conservative Institute.
Senate GOP blocks Democrats' Iran withdrawal push but signals war powers deadline is approaching
The Republican-led Senate voted 47-52 on Wednesday to reject a Democratic resolution that would have forced the withdrawal of U.S. forces from the conflict in Iran absent explicit congressional authorization, the fourth time this year the chamber has turned back such an effort. But the margin of victory masked a growing restlessness within GOP ranks, as several Republican senators made clear that the administration's window to operate without a formal war vote is closing fast. The resolution, introduced by Sen. Tammy Duckworth of Illinois, an Iraq war veteran who lost both legs in combat, would have required the president to pull U.S. armed forces out of hostilities within or against Iran unless Congress declared war or passed a specific authorization for the use of military force. Democrats framed the measure as a constitutional obligation. Republicans called it premature and potentially dangerous to troops in the field. What matters now is not the vote that failed but the votes that may come next. Under the War Powers Act of 1973, Congress must either declare war or authorize the use of force within 60 days of its start, a deadline that arrives at the end of this month. The law allows a potential 30-day extension, but the Associated Press reported that lawmakers in both parties have made clear they want the administration to lay out a plan for ending the conflict soon. Republicans hold the line, with conditions Senate Majority Leader John Thune struck a careful balance after the vote, crediting the military's performance while putting the White House on notice. He told reporters that "at this point most of us I think feel pretty good about what the military has achieved," but added a pointed qualifier: "They do need a plan for how to wind this down, how to get an outcome that actually leads to a safer, more secure Middle East and, by extension, a stronger national security position for the United States." Thune called an eventual White House request for war funding, which could run into the hundreds of billions of dollars, an "inflection point" and acknowledged the "power that Congress has to influence what happens there." That language was not idle. It was a signal that the Senate majority leader sees the funding vote as a leverage point, not a rubber stamp. Sen. Jim Lankford of Oklahoma was more direct. He said the funding request will "be the big vote," adding: "Is it going to happen or is it not going to happen?" In other words, the real congressional test is not a war powers resolution that everyone knows will fail on party lines. It is the moment the administration asks for money, and Congress has to decide what conditions to attach. Several Republican senators went further, openly stating that the president's authority has limits. Sen. Susan Collins of Maine said presidential power "is not unlimited as commander in chief." "If this conflict exceeds the 60 days specified in the War Powers Act, or if the President deploys troops on the ground, I believe that Congress should have to authorize those actions." Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri said he would like to see the war end in the coming weeks, but if it does not, "at the end of 60 days, I think we need to vote on a military authorization." Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina said that after the 60-day or 90-day deadline, "it's time to fish or cut bait," and urged the administration to prepare a formal authorization of military force and a funding strategy. Murkowski drafts a GOP alternative Perhaps the most significant behind-the-scenes development is the work of Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, who has been talking to Republican colleagues about drafting a resolution that would authorize the conflict beyond the 60-day deadline, on Congress's terms. Murkowski has not released the text, but she said the goal is to ensure the American people "know the limits and objectives of this military operation." Murkowski has been one of the most vocal Republicans on the war powers question. At the beginning of March, she said plainly: "There is no question that the president should have sought authorization from Congress before striking Iran on this scale, likewise bringing in our allies ahead of time as they now are equally in danger." Yet last month, she opposed the Democratic measures, arguing they would hurt troops by prompting an abrupt withdrawal. That distinction, between demanding congressional authority and forcing an immediate pullout, is where most Senate Republicans have landed. Sen. John Curtis of Utah said he had reviewed Murkowski's draft and provided feedback, though he declined to share details. "I think we are all watching," Curtis said, adding that he hopes the war ends before the deadline forces the question. Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana captured the prevailing GOP mood with characteristic bluntness. Congress, he said, is not going to "jump up and say that's it, it's one second past 60 days, everybody come home." "I want to see us achieve our objective in Iran. And then I want to see us get out." Kennedy also suggested that some of those pushing for a vote simply want to embarrass the president rather than exercise genuine constitutional oversight. Democrats vow to keep forcing the issue Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, whose political standing has been under pressure from multiple directions, cast the vote in starkly partisan terms, saying "the American people literally cannot afford for Republicans to forgo another opportunity to work with Democrats to end Trump's disastrous war." Democrats have vowed to keep forcing votes on the Senate floor as long as the war continues. The Washington Times reported that Schumer promised to bring multiple war powers resolutions forward to check the president's authority by forcing him to seek congressional approval for further military action. "Join us on this resolution and end the war once and for all," Schumer said. But the strategy has produced the same result each time. Five war powers resolutions related to Iran have now failed in Congress since the conflict began on February 28, and Democrats have not come close to peeling off enough Republican votes to change the outcome. Schumer's inability to move the needle, even as some Republicans express public unease, raises the question of whether these votes are serious legislative efforts or messaging exercises designed for campaign ads. It is worth noting that Schumer has struggled to articulate a coherent position on the conflict's military objectives even as he demands its end. Calling for withdrawal while declining to acknowledge the strategic value of degrading Iran's nuclear capabilities is not a serious foreign policy stance. It is a posture. Cross-party defections tell their own story Just The News reported that the vote featured the now-familiar cross-party defections: Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, a Democrat, voted with Republicans to block the measure, while Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, a Republican, voted with Democrats in favor of it. Those two have been the consistent outliers on every Iran war powers vote this year. Fetterman's repeated breaks with his party on national security matters have drawn sharp criticism from the Democratic base. Paul's vote reflects his long-standing non-interventionist principles. Neither defection changed the math. An earlier vote in March, on a resolution introduced by Sen. Tim Kaine, failed 47-53 along similar lines. Sen. Markwayne Mullin said at the time, "I won't hamstring President Trump." Sen. Andy Kim countered that "today's vote sends us down a dangerous path into a potentially endless war." The pattern has held through every iteration: Democrats frame the conflict as unauthorized and reckless; Republicans frame withdrawal resolutions as dangerous to the mission and the troops. The real test is weeks away A war powers vote in the House is expected this week, though the outcome remains uncertain. But the more consequential moment, the one multiple Republican senators are now openly pointing toward, is the 60-day deadline at the end of the month and the war funding request that will follow. Thune, Tillis, Collins, Hawley, Murkowski, and Lankford have all, in different ways, signaled that the current posture cannot hold indefinitely. The question is whether the administration moves first with a credible authorization request and a clear exit framework, or whether Congress is forced to act on its own terms. The difference between those two scenarios is the difference between orderly governance and a messy confrontation that benefits no one. Iran's nuclear capabilities make this conflict different from the open-ended deployments that eroded public trust in previous administrations. The stakes are real. But so is the constitutional requirement that Congress, not the executive alone, decides when America goes to war and how long it stays. Republicans were right to reject a resolution designed more to embarrass the president than to protect American interests. They will also be right to insist, when the deadline arrives, that the Constitution means what it says. The post Senate GOP blocks Democrats' Iran withdrawal push but signals war powers deadline is approaching appeared first on Conservative Institute.
Senate GOP blocks Democrats' Iran withdrawal push but signals war powers deadline is approaching
The Republican-led Senate voted 47-52 on Wednesday to reject a Democratic resolution that would have forced the withdrawal of U.S. forces from the conflict in Iran absent explicit congressional authorization, the fourth time this year the chamber has turned back such an effort. But the margin of victory masked a growing restlessness within GOP ranks, as several Republican senators made clear that the administration's window to operate without a formal war vote is closing fast. The resolution, introduced by Sen. Tammy Duckworth of Illinois, an Iraq war veteran who lost both legs in combat, would have required the president to pull U.S. armed forces out of hostilities within or against Iran unless Congress declared war or passed a specific authorization for the use of military force. Democrats framed the measure as a constitutional obligation. Republicans called it premature and potentially dangerous to troops in the field. What matters now is not the vote that failed but the votes that may come next. Under the War Powers Act of 1973, Congress must either declare war or authorize the use of force within 60 days of its start, a deadline that arrives at the end of this month. The law allows a potential 30-day extension, but the Associated Press reported that lawmakers in both parties have made clear they want the administration to lay out a plan for ending the conflict soon. Republicans hold the line, with conditions Senate Majority Leader John Thune struck a careful balance after the vote, crediting the military's performance while putting the White House on notice. He told reporters that "at this point most of us I think feel pretty good about what the military has achieved," but added a pointed qualifier: "They do need a plan for how to wind this down, how to get an outcome that actually leads to a safer, more secure Middle East and, by extension, a stronger national security position for the United States." Thune called an eventual White House request for war funding, which could run into the hundreds of billions of dollars, an "inflection point" and acknowledged the "power that Congress has to influence what happens there." That language was not idle. It was a signal that the Senate majority leader sees the funding vote as a leverage point, not a rubber stamp. Sen. Jim Lankford of Oklahoma was more direct. He said the funding request will "be the big vote," adding: "Is it going to happen or is it not going to happen?" In other words, the real congressional test is not a war powers resolution that everyone knows will fail on party lines. It is the moment the administration asks for money, and Congress has to decide what conditions to attach. Several Republican senators went further, openly stating that the president's authority has limits. Sen. Susan Collins of Maine said presidential power "is not unlimited as commander in chief." "If this conflict exceeds the 60 days specified in the War Powers Act, or if the President deploys troops on the ground, I believe that Congress should have to authorize those actions." Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri said he would like to see the war end in the coming weeks, but if it does not, "at the end of 60 days, I think we need to vote on a military authorization." Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina said that after the 60-day or 90-day deadline, "it's time to fish or cut bait," and urged the administration to prepare a formal authorization of military force and a funding strategy. Murkowski drafts a GOP alternative Perhaps the most significant behind-the-scenes development is the work of Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, who has been talking to Republican colleagues about drafting a resolution that would authorize the conflict beyond the 60-day deadline, on Congress's terms. Murkowski has not released the text, but she said the goal is to ensure the American people "know the limits and objectives of this military operation." Murkowski has been one of the most vocal Republicans on the war powers question. At the beginning of March, she said plainly: "There is no question that the president should have sought authorization from Congress before striking Iran on this scale, likewise bringing in our allies ahead of time as they now are equally in danger." Yet last month, she opposed the Democratic measures, arguing they would hurt troops by prompting an abrupt withdrawal. That distinction, between demanding congressional authority and forcing an immediate pullout, is where most Senate Republicans have landed. Sen. John Curtis of Utah said he had reviewed Murkowski's draft and provided feedback, though he declined to share details. "I think we are all watching," Curtis said, adding that he hopes the war ends before the deadline forces the question. Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana captured the prevailing GOP mood with characteristic bluntness. Congress, he said, is not going to "jump up and say that's it, it's one second past 60 days, everybody come home." "I want to see us achieve our objective in Iran. And then I want to see us get out." Kennedy also suggested that some of those pushing for a vote simply want to embarrass the president rather than exercise genuine constitutional oversight. Democrats vow to keep forcing the issue Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, whose political standing has been under pressure from multiple directions, cast the vote in starkly partisan terms, saying "the American people literally cannot afford for Republicans to forgo another opportunity to work with Democrats to end Trump's disastrous war." Democrats have vowed to keep forcing votes on the Senate floor as long as the war continues. The Washington Times reported that Schumer promised to bring multiple war powers resolutions forward to check the president's authority by forcing him to seek congressional approval for further military action. "Join us on this resolution and end the war once and for all," Schumer said. But the strategy has produced the same result each time. Five war powers resolutions related to Iran have now failed in Congress since the conflict began on February 28, and Democrats have not come close to peeling off enough Republican votes to change the outcome. Schumer's inability to move the needle, even as some Republicans express public unease, raises the question of whether these votes are serious legislative efforts or messaging exercises designed for campaign ads. It is worth noting that Schumer has struggled to articulate a coherent position on the conflict's military objectives even as he demands its end. Calling for withdrawal while declining to acknowledge the strategic value of degrading Iran's nuclear capabilities is not a serious foreign policy stance. It is a posture. Cross-party defections tell their own story Just The News reported that the vote featured the now-familiar cross-party defections: Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, a Democrat, voted with Republicans to block the measure, while Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, a Republican, voted with Democrats in favor of it. Those two have been the consistent outliers on every Iran war powers vote this year. Fetterman's repeated breaks with his party on national security matters have drawn sharp criticism from the Democratic base. Paul's vote reflects his long-standing non-interventionist principles. Neither defection changed the math. An earlier vote in March, on a resolution introduced by Sen. Tim Kaine, failed 47-53 along similar lines. Sen. Markwayne Mullin said at the time, "I won't hamstring President Trump." Sen. Andy Kim countered that "today's vote sends us down a dangerous path into a potentially endless war." The pattern has held through every iteration: Democrats frame the conflict as unauthorized and reckless; Republicans frame withdrawal resolutions as dangerous to the mission and the troops. The real test is weeks away A war powers vote in the House is expected this week, though the outcome remains uncertain. But the more consequential moment, the one multiple Republican senators are now openly pointing toward, is the 60-day deadline at the end of the month and the war funding request that will follow. Thune, Tillis, Collins, Hawley, Murkowski, and Lankford have all, in different ways, signaled that the current posture cannot hold indefinitely. The question is whether the administration moves first with a credible authorization request and a clear exit framework, or whether Congress is forced to act on its own terms. The difference between those two scenarios is the difference between orderly governance and a messy confrontation that benefits no one. Iran's nuclear capabilities make this conflict different from the open-ended deployments that eroded public trust in previous administrations. The stakes are real. But so is the constitutional requirement that Congress, not the executive alone, decides when America goes to war and how long it stays. Republicans were right to reject a resolution designed more to embarrass the president than to protect American interests. They will also be right to insist, when the deadline arrives, that the Constitution means what it says. The post Senate GOP blocks Democrats' Iran withdrawal push but signals war powers deadline is approaching appeared first on Conservative Institute.
Senate rejects Democrat bid to restrict Trump's Iran military authority as Fetterman sides with GOP again
The Senate voted down a Democratic war powers resolution on Wednesday, defeating an effort to force President Donald Trump to withdraw U.S. forces from hostilities in Iran without explicit congressional authorization. The final tally, 47 to 52, marked the fourth time this year that Senate Democrats failed to curb the president's military authority over the Iran conflict, The Independent reported. The measure, sponsored by Sen. Tammy Duckworth, needed 51 votes to pass. It fell short in part because Pennsylvania Democrat John Fetterman crossed party lines to vote with Republicans, continuing a pattern that has made him one of the most unpredictable members of his caucus. On the other side of the aisle, Kentucky Republican Rand Paul was the only member of his party to break ranks and vote with Democrats. West Virginia Sen. Jim Justice was absent. For Democrats, the result was another dead end. For the White House, it was another signal that the Republican conference remains unified behind the president's handling of the Iran campaign, at least for now. Fetterman's break with his party, again Fetterman's vote did not come as a surprise. He had telegraphed his position weeks earlier, telling Fox News on April 9 that he would oppose any new War Powers push. His reasoning was blunt: the military should be allowed to finish what it started. As Fetterman put it on Fox News: "We're not even 40 days into this and now, now I'm reading that they're now [going] to force another War Powers vote, and I will vote against that now, because we have to stand [with] our military to allow them to accomplish, you know, the goals of Epic Fury." That kind of language, standing with the military, backing the mission, is not what Democratic leadership wants to hear from its own members while it wages a messaging campaign against the president's Iran policy. But Fetterman has shown repeatedly that he is willing to side with Republicans when he believes the issue warrants it, regardless of the political cost within his own party. His willingness to break with his caucus stands in contrast to the lockstep discipline Democrats have shown on other recent Senate votes. Every Senate Democrat voted against a photo ID requirement to prevent election fraud in a separate floor fight, the kind of unified opposition that makes Fetterman's defection on Iran all the more conspicuous. Democrats keep forcing votes, and keep losing Wednesday's defeat was not a one-off. The Washington Times reported that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has vowed to keep forcing war powers votes until the Iran conflict ends or Congress formally limits the president's authority. Schumer said ten war powers resolutions had been filed so far, and five had already failed across both chambers since the war began on February 28. "Democrats will continue to force votes on multiple war powers resolutions to check Mr. Trump's power by forcing him to seek congressional approval for further military action in Iran," Schumer said, urging Republicans: "Join us on this resolution and end the war once and for all." The strategy is clear enough: keep the votes coming, keep the pressure on vulnerable Republicans, and build a public record of GOP support for the conflict as midterm season approaches. Whether it works is another question. So far, the math has not moved in Democrats' favor. Duckworth, who sponsored the resolution, framed the vote as an indictment of Republican complicity. In a statement, she said: "While Trump would rather the American people ignore what they're seeing with their own eyes, it's clear that none of this is making America safer, bringing prices down or ending wars like he promised. Americans are sick and tired of being lied to, and Republicans cannot continue to sit by and abdicate their responsibilities as Trump continues to spiral out of control at the expense of our national security." That kind of rhetoric plays well on cable news. But when 52 senators, including one Democrat, vote to keep the president's hands free, the rhetoric runs headlong into political reality. Some Republicans eye the clock The vote may have held, but cracks are forming beneath the surface. AP News reported that several Republicans who voted against the resolution are nonetheless signaling concern about the war's duration. Some have said Congress may need to vote on a formal authorization of military force if the conflict continues past the 60-day War Powers Act deadline. North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis was direct about the timeline. After the 60-day or 90-day deadline, "it's time to fish or cut bait," Tillis said, urging the administration to prepare an authorization and funding strategy. Maine Sen. Susan Collins echoed that position: "If this conflict exceeds the 60 days specified in the War Powers Act, or if the President deploys troops on the ground, I believe that Congress should have to authorize those actions." Those are not hostile voices. Tillis and Collins both voted with the president on Wednesday. But their comments suggest the White House has a finite window of goodwill, and that the next war powers vote, whenever Schumer forces it, could look different if the administration has not secured a deal or a clear path forward. That dynamic mirrors the broader challenge Republicans face in maintaining party unity across high-stakes votes. Collins has shown a willingness to be the decisive Republican vote on contentious legislation before, and her conditional support here is worth watching. Diplomacy stalls in Pakistan The Senate vote came against the backdrop of failed diplomatic talks. Over the weekend, Vice President JD Vance led a U.S. delegation to Islamabad, Pakistan, for negotiations aimed at brokering a longer peace agreement with Iran. Vance emerged afterward and declared that Iranian officials had declined the U.S.'s final offer. The sticking point, according to subsequent comments from the administration, was Iran's nuclear program. The Trump administration demanded that Iran give up all current and future uranium enrichment capabilities and surrender any remaining nuclear material. Iran refused. President Trump had set the stage for the talks with a Truth Social post last week that left little room for ambiguity about the stakes. "A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again," Trump wrote. "I don't want that to happen, but it probably will. However, now that we have Complete and Total Regime Change, where different, smarter, and less radicalized minds prevail, maybe something revolutionarily wonderful can happen, WHO KNOWS?" The collapse of talks in Islamabad made Wednesday's vote both more predictable and more significant. Democrats argued the failed negotiations proved the administration's approach was not working. Republicans countered that pulling the rug out from under the military mid-campaign would be the worst possible response to a diplomatic setback. GOP anxiety below the surface While Senate Republicans held the line, not all members of the broader party are comfortable. NBC News published a report Wednesday about a private House Republican group chat that revealed unease among members in competitive districts. One House Republican in a purple district, as quoted by NBC News, said: "The Iran war is affecting our prices. This is something that needs to be addressed." The same member added: "And when we're talking about eliminating an entire civilization, or whatever other thing that they're doing, that's a lot of time we're spending putting out fires." Trump pollster John McLaughlin offered a candid assessment: "The midterms are winnable, but the Republicans need a message and a strategy and right now, the voters don't see a message or a strategy." That kind of frank talk from inside the president's own polling operation suggests the White House knows the political ground is not as solid as the Senate vote count implies. Holding 52 votes today is not the same as holding them in three months, especially if the conflict drags on without a clear resolution or congressional buy-in. The challenge is familiar. Republicans have shown they can maintain discipline on individual floor votes, as all 50 Republican senators demonstrated when they backed the SAVE Act. But sustained unity on a foreign military campaign, with rising costs, uncertain timelines, and midterm elections on the horizon, is a different test entirely. The calls for Trump's removal via the 25th Amendment, which came from some Democrats and even former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, have gone nowhere. But they reflect the intensity of the political environment surrounding the Iran conflict. Breitbart noted that some Republicans may reconsider their support if the war continues past the War Powers Act deadline, a warning that Wednesday's vote, however decisive it looked, may not be the final word. Meanwhile, House Republicans have been demanding Senate showdowns on a range of issues, from voter ID legislation to government spending. The Iran conflict now sits alongside those fights as another front where party discipline will be tested in the months ahead. The bottom line Democrats wanted to tie the president's hands. They failed, again. Fetterman's crossover vote made the margin wider and the embarrassment sharper. But the real question is not whether Wednesday's resolution passed. It is whether the next one will. Republican senators gave the president room to operate. Some of them made clear that room has an expiration date. The administration would be wise to use it. The post Senate rejects Democrat bid to restrict Trump's Iran military authority as Fetterman sides with GOP again appeared first on Conservative Institute.
Federal Reserve turned away Pirro's prosecutors after unannounced visit to headquarters
Two prosecutors from U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro's office showed up without warning at Federal Reserve headquarters in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday, asked to tour the site of a $2.5 billion renovation project, and were denied entry. The confrontation marks the latest escalation in an ongoing dispute between the Justice Department and the nation's central bank over a construction project whose costs have ballooned nearly 80 percent beyond the original budget. Carlton Davis and Steven Vandervelden, both special counsels hired by Pirro, spoke with construction workers at the Fed building and said they wanted to check on the progress of the work, The Independent reported. They were told they could not access the site without pre-clearance and were handed contact information for the Fed's legal staff. The visit did not sit well with the Federal Reserve's outside lawyer, Robert Hur, who fired off a letter to Pirro's office complaining that the prosecutors had arrived "without prior notice." Hur invoked a ruling from U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, who last month threw out two subpoenas tied to Pirro's investigation into the renovation project and Fed Chair Jerome Powell's related testimony. A $2.5 billion renovation and 80 percent cost overruns At the center of the dispute is the Fed's massive headquarters renovation, a project now carrying a $2.5 billion price tag. Pirro has framed the probe as a straightforward matter of fiscal accountability. In a statement following Tuesday's incident, she made her position plain. "Any construction project that has cost overruns of almost 80 percent over the original construction budget deserves some serious review." She added a pointed question: "And these people are in charge of monetary policy in the United States?" That is a fair question for any taxpayer to ask. The Federal Reserve sets the interest rates that shape every mortgage, car loan, and credit card payment in the country. If the institution cannot manage its own construction budget without costs spiraling nearly double, the public has a right to know why, and who is responsible. President Trump visited the site last summer, appearing alongside Powell while wearing a hard hat. He recently remarked that the contractor on the job "is probably one of the richest men in the country right now." Last month, Trump praised Pirro "for having the courage" to investigate the Fed's spending. The Fed's legal counterattack Robert Hur, the same attorney who previously served as special counsel investigating President Biden's handling of classified documents, now represents the Federal Reserve in this matter. His letter to Pirro's office did more than object to the surprise visit. He told her office to stand down entirely, invoking the court's earlier ruling as a shield. "Should you wish to challenge that finding, the courts provide an avenue for you; it is not appropriate for you to try to circumvent it." Hur also demanded a commitment: "I ask that you commit not to seek to communicate with my client outside the presence of counsel." The language reads less like a routine legal objection and more like a warning shot, an institution telling federal prosecutors to back off. The Washington Examiner reported that Hur accused Pirro's office of trying to circumvent Chief Judge Boasberg's rulings limiting the investigation. Hur wrote that the Fed's outside counsel viewed Pirro's interest in the renovation project as "pretextual", a characterization drawn from Boasberg's own findings. Judge Boasberg's ruling last month found that the DOJ probe had been designed to "harass and pressure" Powell. He blocked two subpoenas and, in doing so, effectively narrowed the scope of what Pirro's office could pursue. The Washington Times noted that a top deputy from Pirro's office conceded during a closed-door hearing before the judge that investigators had not found evidence of a crime in their probe of the headquarters project. That concession complicates the picture. But it does not answer the underlying question: How does a federal building renovation end up nearly 80 percent over budget, and why does the institution responsible for it resist outside scrutiny so aggressively? The broader fight over Powell's future The confrontation at Fed headquarters did not happen in a vacuum. Trump has been at odds with Powell over the renovation project, and the president has chosen Kevin Warsh to succeed Powell as Fed chair. Powell's term ends May 15. On the same Tuesday that Pirro's prosecutors were turned away, the Senate Banking Committee announced it would hold Warsh's confirmation hearing on April 21. The timing is no coincidence. The confirmation fight and the renovation probe are now running on parallel tracks, and each one shapes the other. North Carolina GOP Sen. Thom Tillis has previously signaled he will not support any nominee to succeed Powell until Pirro's probe has been concluded. That creates a direct link between the investigation's outcome and the confirmation calendar. South Carolina Republican Sen. Tim Scott, who chairs the Senate Banking Committee, told Fox News he did not know precisely when Pirro's inquiry into renovation costs would be resolved. The broader judicial and political climate surrounding high-profile enforcement actions adds weight to every move in this saga. Boasberg's ruling constraining the investigation, Tillis's hold on the confirmation, and Pirro's unannounced visit all feed into a single question: Who gets to hold the Fed accountable, and on what terms? Pirro's prosecutors and their track record Davis and Vandervelden are not ordinary line prosecutors. Pirro hired both as special counsels after she took office last May. They have been assigned to other high-profile cases, including a failed effort to bring charges against six Democratic lawmakers. That track record invites scrutiny from critics who see the pair as political instruments rather than impartial investigators. But the question of motive cuts both ways. If the Fed's renovation has genuinely blown past its budget by nearly 80 percent, the institution's resistance to even a site visit raises its own red flags. Federal prosecutors routinely inspect construction sites, review contractor records, and interview workers as part of fraud and waste investigations. Turning them away, and then having your lawyer send a cease-and-desist letter, is not the posture of an institution eager to demonstrate it has nothing to hide. Pirro herself is no stranger to public legal battles, and her willingness to push the boundaries of her office's authority has drawn both praise from supporters and objections from the bench. The unannounced visit fits the pattern: aggressive, direct, and certain to generate friction. What remains unanswered Several questions hang over this confrontation. The original construction budget for the Fed renovation has not been publicly specified in detail, making it difficult to verify the 80 percent overrun figure independently. The legal basis for Boasberg's ruling, and the specific statutes at issue, remain largely undisclosed in public reporting. It is also unclear what, if anything, Davis and Vandervelden learned from the construction workers they spoke with before being turned away. Whether those conversations yielded any substantive information, or whether the visit was primarily a show of force, remains an open question. The broader pattern of federal-state confrontations over enforcement authority continues to define this era of governance. Institutions that once cooperated with oversight now lawyer up and invoke judicial orders to keep investigators at arm's length. The Fed is hardly the only agency playing defense, but it may be the richest. Meanwhile, federal prosecutors across the country continue to pursue high-profile investigations under Pirro's broader mandate. The question is whether the courts will let them finish the job at the Fed, or whether the central bank's legal team will succeed in walling off the renovation project from any meaningful review. The bottom line A $2.5 billion renovation with cost overruns approaching 80 percent is not a minor bookkeeping dispute. It is a test of whether powerful institutions can spend public resources without answering to anyone. The Fed turned away federal prosecutors at the door. Its lawyer told them to go through the courts. A judge already narrowed the investigation and questioned its motives. Every one of those barriers may be legally proper. But taken together, they paint a picture of an institution that would rather litigate than explain where the money went. When the people in charge of the nation's monetary policy cannot account for their own building costs, the rest of us are entitled to wonder what else they are getting wrong. The post Federal Reserve turned away Pirro's prosecutors after unannounced visit to headquarters appeared first on Conservative Institute.
Senate rejects Democrat bid to restrict Trump's Iran military authority as Fetterman sides with GOP again
The Senate voted down a Democratic war powers resolution on Wednesday, defeating an effort to force President Donald Trump to withdraw U.S. forces from hostilities in Iran without explicit congressional authorization. The final tally, 47 to 52, marked the fourth time this year that Senate Democrats failed to curb the president's military authority over the Iran conflict, The Independent reported. The measure, sponsored by Sen. Tammy Duckworth, needed 51 votes to pass. It fell short in part because Pennsylvania Democrat John Fetterman crossed party lines to vote with Republicans, continuing a pattern that has made him one of the most unpredictable members of his caucus. On the other side of the aisle, Kentucky Republican Rand Paul was the only member of his party to break ranks and vote with Democrats. West Virginia Sen. Jim Justice was absent. For Democrats, the result was another dead end. For the White House, it was another signal that the Republican conference remains unified behind the president's handling of the Iran campaign, at least for now. Fetterman's break with his party, again Fetterman's vote did not come as a surprise. He had telegraphed his position weeks earlier, telling Fox News on April 9 that he would oppose any new War Powers push. His reasoning was blunt: the military should be allowed to finish what it started. As Fetterman put it on Fox News: "We're not even 40 days into this and now, now I'm reading that they're now [going] to force another War Powers vote, and I will vote against that now, because we have to stand [with] our military to allow them to accomplish, you know, the goals of Epic Fury." That kind of language, standing with the military, backing the mission, is not what Democratic leadership wants to hear from its own members while it wages a messaging campaign against the president's Iran policy. But Fetterman has shown repeatedly that he is willing to side with Republicans when he believes the issue warrants it, regardless of the political cost within his own party. His willingness to break with his caucus stands in contrast to the lockstep discipline Democrats have shown on other recent Senate votes. Every Senate Democrat voted against a photo ID requirement to prevent election fraud in a separate floor fight, the kind of unified opposition that makes Fetterman's defection on Iran all the more conspicuous. Democrats keep forcing votes, and keep losing Wednesday's defeat was not a one-off. The Washington Times reported that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has vowed to keep forcing war powers votes until the Iran conflict ends or Congress formally limits the president's authority. Schumer said ten war powers resolutions had been filed so far, and five had already failed across both chambers since the war began on February 28. "Democrats will continue to force votes on multiple war powers resolutions to check Mr. Trump's power by forcing him to seek congressional approval for further military action in Iran," Schumer said, urging Republicans: "Join us on this resolution and end the war once and for all." The strategy is clear enough: keep the votes coming, keep the pressure on vulnerable Republicans, and build a public record of GOP support for the conflict as midterm season approaches. Whether it works is another question. So far, the math has not moved in Democrats' favor. Duckworth, who sponsored the resolution, framed the vote as an indictment of Republican complicity. In a statement, she said: "While Trump would rather the American people ignore what they're seeing with their own eyes, it's clear that none of this is making America safer, bringing prices down or ending wars like he promised. Americans are sick and tired of being lied to, and Republicans cannot continue to sit by and abdicate their responsibilities as Trump continues to spiral out of control at the expense of our national security." That kind of rhetoric plays well on cable news. But when 52 senators, including one Democrat, vote to keep the president's hands free, the rhetoric runs headlong into political reality. Some Republicans eye the clock The vote may have held, but cracks are forming beneath the surface. AP News reported that several Republicans who voted against the resolution are nonetheless signaling concern about the war's duration. Some have said Congress may need to vote on a formal authorization of military force if the conflict continues past the 60-day War Powers Act deadline. North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis was direct about the timeline. After the 60-day or 90-day deadline, "it's time to fish or cut bait," Tillis said, urging the administration to prepare an authorization and funding strategy. Maine Sen. Susan Collins echoed that position: "If this conflict exceeds the 60 days specified in the War Powers Act, or if the President deploys troops on the ground, I believe that Congress should have to authorize those actions." Those are not hostile voices. Tillis and Collins both voted with the president on Wednesday. But their comments suggest the White House has a finite window of goodwill, and that the next war powers vote, whenever Schumer forces it, could look different if the administration has not secured a deal or a clear path forward. That dynamic mirrors the broader challenge Republicans face in maintaining party unity across high-stakes votes. Collins has shown a willingness to be the decisive Republican vote on contentious legislation before, and her conditional support here is worth watching. Diplomacy stalls in Pakistan The Senate vote came against the backdrop of failed diplomatic talks. Over the weekend, Vice President JD Vance led a U.S. delegation to Islamabad, Pakistan, for negotiations aimed at brokering a longer peace agreement with Iran. Vance emerged afterward and declared that Iranian officials had declined the U.S.'s final offer. The sticking point, according to subsequent comments from the administration, was Iran's nuclear program. The Trump administration demanded that Iran give up all current and future uranium enrichment capabilities and surrender any remaining nuclear material. Iran refused. President Trump had set the stage for the talks with a Truth Social post last week that left little room for ambiguity about the stakes. "A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again," Trump wrote. "I don't want that to happen, but it probably will. However, now that we have Complete and Total Regime Change, where different, smarter, and less radicalized minds prevail, maybe something revolutionarily wonderful can happen, WHO KNOWS?" The collapse of talks in Islamabad made Wednesday's vote both more predictable and more significant. Democrats argued the failed negotiations proved the administration's approach was not working. Republicans countered that pulling the rug out from under the military mid-campaign would be the worst possible response to a diplomatic setback. GOP anxiety below the surface While Senate Republicans held the line, not all members of the broader party are comfortable. NBC News published a report Wednesday about a private House Republican group chat that revealed unease among members in competitive districts. One House Republican in a purple district, as quoted by NBC News, said: "The Iran war is affecting our prices. This is something that needs to be addressed." The same member added: "And when we're talking about eliminating an entire civilization, or whatever other thing that they're doing, that's a lot of time we're spending putting out fires." Trump pollster John McLaughlin offered a candid assessment: "The midterms are winnable, but the Republicans need a message and a strategy and right now, the voters don't see a message or a strategy." That kind of frank talk from inside the president's own polling operation suggests the White House knows the political ground is not as solid as the Senate vote count implies. Holding 52 votes today is not the same as holding them in three months, especially if the conflict drags on without a clear resolution or congressional buy-in. The challenge is familiar. Republicans have shown they can maintain discipline on individual floor votes, as all 50 Republican senators demonstrated when they backed the SAVE Act. But sustained unity on a foreign military campaign, with rising costs, uncertain timelines, and midterm elections on the horizon, is a different test entirely. The calls for Trump's removal via the 25th Amendment, which came from some Democrats and even former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, have gone nowhere. But they reflect the intensity of the political environment surrounding the Iran conflict. Breitbart noted that some Republicans may reconsider their support if the war continues past the War Powers Act deadline, a warning that Wednesday's vote, however decisive it looked, may not be the final word. Meanwhile, House Republicans have been demanding Senate showdowns on a range of issues, from voter ID legislation to government spending. The Iran conflict now sits alongside those fights as another front where party discipline will be tested in the months ahead. The bottom line Democrats wanted to tie the president's hands. They failed, again. Fetterman's crossover vote made the margin wider and the embarrassment sharper. But the real question is not whether Wednesday's resolution passed. It is whether the next one will. Republican senators gave the president room to operate. Some of them made clear that room has an expiration date. The administration would be wise to use it. The post Senate rejects Democrat bid to restrict Trump's Iran military authority as Fetterman sides with GOP again appeared first on Conservative Institute.
Senate GOP blocks Democrats' Iran withdrawal push but signals war powers deadline is approaching
The Republican-led Senate voted 47-52 on Wednesday to reject a Democratic resolution that would have forced the withdrawal of U.S. forces from the conflict in Iran absent explicit congressional authorization, the fourth time this year the chamber has turned back such an effort. But the margin of victory masked a growing restlessness within GOP ranks, as several Republican senators made clear that the administration's window to operate without a formal war vote is closing fast. The resolution, introduced by Sen. Tammy Duckworth of Illinois, an Iraq war veteran who lost both legs in combat, would have required the president to pull U.S. armed forces out of hostilities within or against Iran unless Congress declared war or passed a specific authorization for the use of military force. Democrats framed the measure as a constitutional obligation. Republicans called it premature and potentially dangerous to troops in the field. What matters now is not the vote that failed but the votes that may come next. Under the War Powers Act of 1973, Congress must either declare war or authorize the use of force within 60 days of its start, a deadline that arrives at the end of this month. The law allows a potential 30-day extension, but the Associated Press reported that lawmakers in both parties have made clear they want the administration to lay out a plan for ending the conflict soon. Republicans hold the line, with conditions Senate Majority Leader John Thune struck a careful balance after the vote, crediting the military's performance while putting the White House on notice. He told reporters that "at this point most of us I think feel pretty good about what the military has achieved," but added a pointed qualifier: "They do need a plan for how to wind this down, how to get an outcome that actually leads to a safer, more secure Middle East and, by extension, a stronger national security position for the United States." Thune called an eventual White House request for war funding, which could run into the hundreds of billions of dollars, an "inflection point" and acknowledged the "power that Congress has to influence what happens there." That language was not idle. It was a signal that the Senate majority leader sees the funding vote as a leverage point, not a rubber stamp. Sen. Jim Lankford of Oklahoma was more direct. He said the funding request will "be the big vote," adding: "Is it going to happen or is it not going to happen?" In other words, the real congressional test is not a war powers resolution that everyone knows will fail on party lines. It is the moment the administration asks for money, and Congress has to decide what conditions to attach. Several Republican senators went further, openly stating that the president's authority has limits. Sen. Susan Collins of Maine said presidential power "is not unlimited as commander in chief." "If this conflict exceeds the 60 days specified in the War Powers Act, or if the President deploys troops on the ground, I believe that Congress should have to authorize those actions." Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri said he would like to see the war end in the coming weeks, but if it does not, "at the end of 60 days, I think we need to vote on a military authorization." Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina said that after the 60-day or 90-day deadline, "it's time to fish or cut bait," and urged the administration to prepare a formal authorization of military force and a funding strategy. Murkowski drafts a GOP alternative Perhaps the most significant behind-the-scenes development is the work of Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, who has been talking to Republican colleagues about drafting a resolution that would authorize the conflict beyond the 60-day deadline, on Congress's terms. Murkowski has not released the text, but she said the goal is to ensure the American people "know the limits and objectives of this military operation." Murkowski has been one of the most vocal Republicans on the war powers question. At the beginning of March, she said plainly: "There is no question that the president should have sought authorization from Congress before striking Iran on this scale, likewise bringing in our allies ahead of time as they now are equally in danger." Yet last month, she opposed the Democratic measures, arguing they would hurt troops by prompting an abrupt withdrawal. That distinction, between demanding congressional authority and forcing an immediate pullout, is where most Senate Republicans have landed. Sen. John Curtis of Utah said he had reviewed Murkowski's draft and provided feedback, though he declined to share details. "I think we are all watching," Curtis said, adding that he hopes the war ends before the deadline forces the question. Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana captured the prevailing GOP mood with characteristic bluntness. Congress, he said, is not going to "jump up and say that's it, it's one second past 60 days, everybody come home." "I want to see us achieve our objective in Iran. And then I want to see us get out." Kennedy also suggested that some of those pushing for a vote simply want to embarrass the president rather than exercise genuine constitutional oversight. Democrats vow to keep forcing the issue Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, whose political standing has been under pressure from multiple directions, cast the vote in starkly partisan terms, saying "the American people literally cannot afford for Republicans to forgo another opportunity to work with Democrats to end Trump's disastrous war." Democrats have vowed to keep forcing votes on the Senate floor as long as the war continues. The Washington Times reported that Schumer promised to bring multiple war powers resolutions forward to check the president's authority by forcing him to seek congressional approval for further military action. "Join us on this resolution and end the war once and for all," Schumer said. But the strategy has produced the same result each time. Five war powers resolutions related to Iran have now failed in Congress since the conflict began on February 28, and Democrats have not come close to peeling off enough Republican votes to change the outcome. Schumer's inability to move the needle, even as some Republicans express public unease, raises the question of whether these votes are serious legislative efforts or messaging exercises designed for campaign ads. It is worth noting that Schumer has struggled to articulate a coherent position on the conflict's military objectives even as he demands its end. Calling for withdrawal while declining to acknowledge the strategic value of degrading Iran's nuclear capabilities is not a serious foreign policy stance. It is a posture. Cross-party defections tell their own story Just The News reported that the vote featured the now-familiar cross-party defections: Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, a Democrat, voted with Republicans to block the measure, while Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, a Republican, voted with Democrats in favor of it. Those two have been the consistent outliers on every Iran war powers vote this year. Fetterman's repeated breaks with his party on national security matters have drawn sharp criticism from the Democratic base. Paul's vote reflects his long-standing non-interventionist principles. Neither defection changed the math. An earlier vote in March, on a resolution introduced by Sen. Tim Kaine, failed 47-53 along similar lines. Sen. Markwayne Mullin said at the time, "I won't hamstring President Trump." Sen. Andy Kim countered that "today's vote sends us down a dangerous path into a potentially endless war." The pattern has held through every iteration: Democrats frame the conflict as unauthorized and reckless; Republicans frame withdrawal resolutions as dangerous to the mission and the troops. The real test is weeks away A war powers vote in the House is expected this week, though the outcome remains uncertain. But the more consequential moment, the one multiple Republican senators are now openly pointing toward, is the 60-day deadline at the end of the month and the war funding request that will follow. Thune, Tillis, Collins, Hawley, Murkowski, and Lankford have all, in different ways, signaled that the current posture cannot hold indefinitely. The question is whether the administration moves first with a credible authorization request and a clear exit framework, or whether Congress is forced to act on its own terms. The difference between those two scenarios is the difference between orderly governance and a messy confrontation that benefits no one. Iran's nuclear capabilities make this conflict different from the open-ended deployments that eroded public trust in previous administrations. The stakes are real. But so is the constitutional requirement that Congress, not the executive alone, decides when America goes to war and how long it stays. Republicans were right to reject a resolution designed more to embarrass the president than to protect American interests. They will also be right to insist, when the deadline arrives, that the Constitution means what it says. The post Senate GOP blocks Democrats' Iran withdrawal push but signals war powers deadline is approaching appeared first on Conservative Institute.
Project 2025 architect Paul Dans exits South Carolina primary challenge to Lindsey Graham
Paul Dans, the attorney and Heritage Foundation policy architect who helped build the nearly 1,000-page Project 2025 blueprint, pulled out of the Republican primary against Sen. Lindsey Graham on Friday, the last day he could remove his name from South Carolina ballots before the June 9 contest. Dans did not offer a specific reason for his withdrawal, but the timing tells a story of its own. President Trump had long ago endorsed Graham, and he made his feelings about the challenge unmistakable in a social media post calling the endorsement Dans had received from Tucker Carlson a "KISS OF DEATH." The exit leaves a half-dozen other Republican candidates still in the race against Graham, who announced he would seek a fifth term in the Senate. But none carried the national profile, or the ideological credentials, that Dans brought to the fight. His departure effectively clears the most prominent obstacle from Graham's right flank heading into 2026. A primary challenge born from Project 2025 Dans is no ordinary first-time candidate. He worked in the first Trump administration as the White House liaison to the Office of Personnel Management in Washington. He later organized Project 2025 at the Heritage Foundation, a sweeping conservative governance blueprint designed to staff and steer a second Trump term from day one. Last year, Dans framed his ambitions in terms that went well beyond South Carolina. He told The Associated Press: "What we've done with Project 2025 is really change the game in terms of closing the door on the progressive era." He followed that with a sharper diagnosis of where he believed the real problem lay, not in the executive branch, but in the upper chamber of Congress: "If you look at where the chokepoint is, it's the United States Senate. That's the headwaters of the swamp." That language positioned Graham, one of the Senate's longest-serving Republicans, squarely in Dans's crosshairs. For grassroots conservatives frustrated by the pace of legislative action, on spending, immigration, and executive appointments, the framing had obvious appeal. Trump's endorsement settled the question Whatever grassroots energy Dans may have tapped, the political math shifted decisively once Trump weighed in. The president gave Graham his endorsement early on, and Graham moved quickly to lock down the state's top Republican allies. Sen. Tim Scott and Gov. Henry McMaster were both secured to chair Graham's 2026 reelection effort. The broader pattern of Trump personnel decisions shaping the party's internal dynamics has played out across multiple fronts this year. In South Carolina, the president's preference was never ambiguous. Graham's campaign reported more than $11.6 million in cash on hand on Monday, along with nearly $1.4 million raised in the first quarter of this year. Those numbers alone would have made any primary challenge steep. With Trump's backing on top, the hill became a cliff. The Carlson factor Tucker Carlson, the former Fox News star, had endorsed Dans, a move that injected the race into a broader and more volatile storyline. Carlson has been feuding publicly with Trump over the administration's approach to Iran, calling the conflict "absolutely disgusting and evil." Trump responded to Dans's initial announcement by writing on social media that Carlson's endorsement was a "KISS OF DEATH." He went further, saying the candidacy of Mark Lynch, the appliance business owner Dans endorsed upon exiting, "would be a DISASTER for the Republican Party." Dans denied that his decision to withdraw had anything to do with Carlson. But the sequence of events, Carlson endorses Dans, Trump fires back publicly, Dans exits and endorses a different candidate, speaks for itself. In a Republican primary in 2026, crossing the president's endorsement is a losing bet, and Dans appears to have recognized that before the ballots were printed. The episode mirrors other recent moments in which last-minute reversals have reshaped Trump-era political calculations, with allies and challengers alike adjusting course in real time. Graham's durability and the field ahead Lindsey Graham has routinely batted back primary contenders over the years. He is among Trump's top congressional allies, a political confidant and regular golfing partner of the president. That relationship, combined with his fundraising muscle and institutional support, makes him one of the most difficult Republican incumbents to dislodge from the right. A half-dozen Republicans remain in the race, though none have attracted the national attention Dans commanded. The June 9 primary will test whether any of them can generate real opposition, but with Trump's endorsement locked in and the state's leading Republicans lined up behind Graham, the path is narrow. Trump's willingness to intervene forcefully in intraparty contests continues to define the Republican landscape. His $300 million midterm operation signals that the White House views 2026 as a cycle where loyalty and coordination matter as much as ideology. Dans, for his part, did not leave quietly. His endorsement of Lynch suggests he still wants a more combative conservative voice in the race, even if it is no longer his own. Whether Lynch or any other challenger can make a dent against Graham's war chest and presidential backing remains an open question. The broader question for the Republican base is whether the Senate, the institution Dans called "the headwaters of the swamp", will see any meaningful primary challenges succeed in 2026. Trump has shown he will protect allies he considers essential, even when grassroots frustration runs hot. What Dans's exit means Dans built Project 2025 on the premise that conservative governance requires the right people in the right jobs. He argued the Senate was the bottleneck. But when the president who benefited most from that blueprint told him to stand down, Dans stood down. That is not a contradiction. It is a recognition of how Republican politics works right now. The conservative movement has enormous energy at the grassroots level and inside the policy shops. But in electoral politics, Trump's endorsement remains the single most powerful force in the party. No blueprint, no matter how detailed, overrides it. If conservatives want to reshape the Senate, they will need to pick fights the president is willing to join, not ones he has already decided to end. The post Project 2025 architect Paul Dans exits South Carolina primary challenge to Lindsey Graham appeared first on Conservative Institute.
AOC courts socialist allies she once dismissed as she eyes 2028 ambitions
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is working to patch things up with the same left-wing activists who pulled their endorsement of her less than two years ago, a charm offensive that coincides with her open consideration of a 2028 presidential or Senate bid. The New York Democrat has shifted her public stance on Israel funding, appeared in a virtual forum with Democratic Socialists of America members, and secured a fresh endorsement from the group's New York City chapter, all while her former top aides offer blunt assessments of her political limits. The maneuvering, detailed by Axios, paints a picture of a politician who once dismissed the organizations that helped launch her career now scrambling to rebuild those bridges before the next election cycle. From insurgent to establishment, and back again Ocasio-Cortez burst onto the national stage with her insurgent 2018 House campaign, powered in part by Justice Democrats and the DSA. But the relationship curdled. In Ryan Grim's book "The Squad," Ocasio-Cortez was remarkably candid about the groups that claimed credit for her rise. "As much as I love them, I did not win my election because of DSA. Or even [Justice Democrats]. Or any of these orgs," she said. "We had built everything from scratch and did the hardest parts, and then when it looked appealing enough they jumped in." That kind of talk doesn't go over well with ideological activists who view themselves as the backbone of the progressive movement. And by July 2024, the DSA's national leadership had seen enough. The group formally withdrew its endorsement of Ocasio-Cortez for that year's elections. The stated reasons were specific. National Review reported that the DSA cited her support for Israel's Iron Dome missile defense system, her refusal to back boycotting Zionist institutions, and a panel she hosted with Jewish leaders on antisemitism. The group called the panel "a deep betrayal to all those who've risked their welfare to fight Israeli apartheid and genocide through political and direct action." The Israel pivot Fast forward to recent weeks, and Ocasio-Cortez has changed course. In a virtual forum with New York City DSA members last month, she committed to vote against any U.S. funding to Israel, including for defensive weapons like the Iron Dome system that had been at the center of her split with the group. City and State New York first reported the commitment. That reversal is worth sitting with. Ocasio-Cortez previously defended her Iron Dome-related votes and accused critics within her own party of lying about her record. "Google is free. If you're saying I voted for military funding, you are lying. Receipts attached," she wrote at the time. She also argued that an amendment by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene to block $500 million for the Iron Dome would have done "nothing to cut off offensive aid to Israel nor end the flow of US munitions being used in Gaza." Now she has pledged to oppose all funding, offensive and defensive alike. The shift didn't happen in a vacuum. It happened when she needed something from the people demanding it. The broader friction between Ocasio-Cortez and the DSA had been building well before the 2024 endorsement withdrawal. The Washington Times reported that the DSA's endorsement had been conditioned on her publicly opposing all funding to Israel and supporting boycott movements. The group also cited her condemnation of a DSA-linked pro-Palestinian rally in Times Square in October as a source of tension. Ocasio-Cortez responded to that rally by saying, "It should not be hard to shut down hatred and antisemitism where we see it. That is a core tenet of solidarity." The DSA saw it differently. A 'master stroke', or a calculated flip? Daniel Denvir, host of the socialist podcast "The Dig," told Axios the shift worked. "This has been a master stroke in repairing the relationship with the left, a belated master stroke, but still a master stroke," he said. The results, at least on paper, back him up. The DSA's New York City chapter voted last week to endorse Ocasio-Cortez for reelection. But the margin tells a more complicated story: more than 500 members voted against the endorsement. That is not a ringing embrace. It suggests a sizable faction within the DSA still doesn't trust her, and with reason. They watched her distance herself from the group for years, dismiss its role in her career, and take positions on Israel that broke with the socialist line. Now she has reversed those positions just as she is openly weighing higher office. The timing invites skepticism, even from allies. One unnamed liberal strategist told Axios that Ocasio-Cortez has privately "lamented that the left was not there for her, that they are never pleased." In a virtual forum with DSA members, she argued that infighting "does not benefit us as a movement." The broader Democratic infighting over Israel and AIPAC has exposed fault lines that run far deeper than one congresswoman's endorsement status. The party's progressive wing and its pro-Israel establishment wing are pulling in opposite directions, and Ocasio-Cortez is trying to straddle that divide while keeping her left flank intact. The old allies weigh in Some of the people who helped build Ocasio-Cortez's political career are now offering measured, and revealing, assessments of her trajectory. Saikat Chakrabarti, her first chief of staff and co-founder of Justice Democrats, is now running for Congress in former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco district. Ocasio-Cortez has not endorsed him in the June 2 primary. Chakrabarti told Axios he was "not surprised," adding: "She has her process, and I'd of course love to earn her endorsement, but it's on us candidates to make the case and show momentum in our campaigns. I hope to do that soon." That diplomatic answer doesn't quite mask the awkwardness. The woman who once relied on Chakrabarti to help engineer her upset victory won't put her name behind his campaign. Whether that reflects political caution or personal distance, it underscores how far Ocasio-Cortez has drifted from the original circle that launched her. Then there is Corbin Trent, her former communications director and another Justice Democrats founder. Trent is writing a book due out before the 2028 primary, and he told Axios it "is a reflection of what I've learned: the limits of individuals, and that's both Bernie and AOC, and it doesn't matter how moral or just or telegenic or stubborn they are." That is a polite way of saying the movement has outgrown its figureheads, or that the figureheads have failed to deliver. Either reading is unflattering for Ocasio-Cortez as she tries to position herself as the progressive heir apparent. Sen. John Fetterman's pointed criticism of the Democratic Party's anti-Israel wing has only made the internal contradictions harder to paper over. 2028 and the credibility question Axios reports that Ocasio-Cortez is weighing both a White House run and a possible U.S. Senate bid in 2028. Early polls, the specifics of which are not detailed, apparently give her reason to consider both paths. Bernie Sanders, whose political lane she would inherit, "hasn't been shy about praising her." She has also been building a track record of political muscle in New York. She helped push Zohran Mamdani to victory in last year's New York City mayoral primary, demonstrating that her endorsement still carries weight in local races. But a national campaign would put her Israel reversal under a microscope. Voters outside deep-blue New York districts may not be as forgiving of a candidate who opposed all defensive aid to a key American ally simply to secure a socialist endorsement. The ideological splits inside the Democratic Party are not getting smaller, and Ocasio-Cortez's attempt to ride both sides of the divide will face sharper scrutiny on a bigger stage. Her spokesperson declined to comment for the Axios report. That silence is itself telling. A politician who built her brand on directness and social media transparency chose not to explain her shifting positions on the record. People familiar with the dynamic told Axios that some in the progressive movement view Ocasio-Cortez as someone whose political identity was forged eight years ago and who has since struggled to keep pace with a base that keeps moving further left. The campaign to win back DSA support is, in that light, less a homecoming than a concession, an acknowledgment that she cannot afford to lose the activists she once told she didn't need. Ocasio-Cortez has previously sidestepped direct questions about a 2028 presidential run, but her recent moves suggest the question is no longer hypothetical. Every policy shift, every outreach call, every forum appearance is being calibrated with an eye toward a national campaign. Her forays into other districts have already signaled a politician thinking beyond her Bronx-Queens base. The DSA reconciliation fits the same pattern. The price of the pivot What Ocasio-Cortez is doing is not unusual in politics. Candidates adjust positions to shore up their base before making a bigger play. But the scale and speed of this particular reversal, from defending Iron Dome votes and accusing critics of lying, to pledging opposition to all Israel funding within a matter of months, raises a straightforward question about conviction. Did she believe what she said when she defended those votes? Does she believe what she's saying now? Or does she believe whatever the next audience needs to hear? Conservative voters watching from the outside may find the spectacle instructive. When a progressive leader abandons a position on a core national security alliance to win back a socialist endorsement, it tells you everything about where the incentives in that party actually point. The post AOC courts socialist allies she once dismissed as she eyes 2028 ambitions appeared first on Conservative Institute.
Jayapal says she would vote to expel Swalwell and Gonzales over sexual misconduct allegations
Rep. Pramila Jayapal went on national television Sunday and called for two of her congressional colleagues, one Democrat, one Republican, to be removed from the House over sexual misconduct allegations, saying both men should resign and that she would vote to expel them if the question reaches the floor. The Washington state Democrat made the remarks on NBC's "Meet the Press," targeting Rep. Eric Swalwell of California and Rep. Tony Gonzales of Texas. Both men face active investigations, Swalwell by the Manhattan District Attorney's Office and Gonzales by the House Ethics Committee, and both face mounting pressure from within their own parties. Jayapal framed the matter as a test of institutional seriousness. As the Washington Examiner reported, she confirmed this week that she would vote to expel both men should the matter come to the floor. She also called on each to step down voluntarily. "I think we have to hold everybody accountable... that both of them need to step down from Congress and let these investigations happen." That Jayapal is willing to put a fellow Democrat's career on the chopping block alongside a Republican's gives the call more weight than the usual partisan posturing. But whether her party, or either party, actually follows through is another question entirely. Swalwell faces rape allegations and a DA investigation Swalwell, a California Democrat who is one of several candidates running to become the state's next governor, has been accused of rape by a former staffer. The ex-staffer claimed Swalwell raped her twice. He has denied the allegations, calling them "flat false" and promising to "fight." Three additional women have since come forward with similar claims. The Manhattan District Attorney's Office, led by Alvin Bragg, is now investigating. The pressure on Swalwell is not coming only from progressive members like Jayapal. Speaker Emeritus Nancy Pelosi and Rep. Jared Huffman, both California Democrats, have called on Swalwell to drop out of the governor's race and resign from Congress. Breitbart reported that House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Sen. Adam Schiff have also called for Swalwell to end his gubernatorial bid. When asked directly whether Swalwell should drop out, Jayapal did not hedge. "I absolutely do." The fact that senior Democrats are lining up against one of their own, in the middle of a competitive gubernatorial primary, tells you how seriously the party's leadership views the political liability. Whether it also reflects genuine concern for the accusers is something voters will have to judge for themselves. Gonzales admitted to an affair, then the texts surfaced Gonzales, a married Texas Republican with six children, dropped his reelection bid in March after disclosing an affair with a staffer. He admitted to the relationship and apologized. But the controversy did not end there. In April, newly released text messages appeared to show Gonzales making unsolicited sexual advances toward his campaign's political director. Those messages date to 2020. The House Ethics Committee is now investigating. The case carries a darker dimension. Regina Santos-Aviles, the former staffer with whom Gonzales had the affair, later killed herself. Gonzales has denied being the cause of her death, claiming police records indicate Santos-Aviles set herself on fire after learning her husband was gay and having an affair with her best friend. The full details of the police records and the circumstances remain unclear. Gonzales has also claimed the timing of the revelations was politically motivated. That defense may carry some appeal in a town where opposition research drops are timed for maximum damage. But it does not answer the substance of what the text messages show, or what the Ethics Committee may ultimately find. Congressional accountability has been a recurring theme on Capitol Hill this year. House Democrats have struggled to hold the line as other members face ethics investigations and federal charges, raising questions about whether either party enforces its own standards consistently. Jayapal frames it as bipartisan, but is it? Jayapal went out of her way to cast the issue in nonpartisan terms, telling NBC that the allegations cut across party lines. "This is not a partisan issue. This cuts across party line, and it is depravity of the way that women have been treated. And I'm just inspired by the courage and the bravery of the women who came forward." She also described the moment in broader terms, saying she sees a pattern of women being silenced by powerful men. "I think that what we are seeing now is an emergence of women across the country who have been dismissed, told to shut up, told to move on, who have been abused by men in powerful positions." The rhetoric is familiar. And naming one Republican alongside one Democrat gives Jayapal a shield against accusations of selective outrage. But the real test of bipartisan accountability is not one Sunday interview, it is whether Congress actually acts. As the Washington Times noted, House expulsion is the most severe form of congressional discipline and requires a two-thirds vote. It has been used only a handful of times in American history. The threshold is enormous, and the political will to meet it is almost always absent. That rarity is worth keeping in mind. Calling for expulsion on a Sunday show costs nothing. Whipping 290 votes on the House floor costs everything. And the gap between those two acts is where most congressional accountability talk goes to die. Open questions remain Several important details remain unresolved. No specific expulsion resolution has been introduced. The Manhattan DA's investigation into Swalwell is ongoing, with no public timeline for a charging decision. The House Ethics Committee probe into Gonzales likewise has no announced conclusion date. The nature of the additional allegations against Swalwell, beyond the initial ex-staffer's claim and the three women who came forward, has not been fully detailed in public reporting. And the full circumstances surrounding Santos-Aviles's death, including what police records actually show, remain murky. Meanwhile, scrutiny of sitting members' conduct extends well beyond these two cases. Separate ethics complaints have targeted other high-profile members over alleged misuse of campaign funds, and the House has faced growing pressure to demonstrate that its oversight mechanisms are more than decorative. Swalwell, for his part, has shown no sign of stepping aside. He has denied the allegations and vowed to fight. Gonzales has already exited his reelection race but remains in office. Neither man has resigned. The political dynamics are also worth watching. Swalwell's refusal to withdraw from the California governor's race puts Democratic leaders in an uncomfortable position. They have publicly called for him to go, but they have limited tools to force the issue short of an expulsion vote that almost certainly lacks the numbers to succeed. Other House members facing investigations have similarly resisted pressure to step aside, and the pattern suggests that voluntary resignation is the exception, not the rule. The accountability gap Jayapal deserves some credit for naming a member of her own party alongside the Republican. That is rarer than it should be. But the hard truth is that Congress has spent decades proving it is incapable of policing its own members with anything approaching consistency or speed. The Ethics Committee moves slowly. Expulsion votes almost never happen. Resignations come only when the political math becomes unbearable, not when the conduct demands it. And the accusers, the former staffers who came forward at real personal cost, are left waiting while Washington calculates. The pattern Jayapal describes, women dismissed, told to shut up, told to move on, is real enough. But it persists in part because the institution she serves in has built a system where powerful members can ride out nearly any allegation as long as they refuse to quit. That is not a failure of one party. It is a failure of the institution itself. Voters watching from heated hearings to ethics probes have heard the accountability talk before. What they have almost never seen is Congress actually follow through. Sunday show declarations are easy. Two-thirds votes are hard. And until Congress proves it can do the hard part, the talk is just talk. The post Jayapal says she would vote to expel Swalwell and Gonzales over sexual misconduct allegations appeared first on Conservative Institute.
Jayapal says she would vote to expel Swalwell and Gonzales over sexual misconduct allegations
Rep. Pramila Jayapal went on national television Sunday and called for two of her congressional colleagues, one Democrat, one Republican, to be removed from the House over sexual misconduct allegations, saying both men should resign and that she would vote to expel them if the question reaches the floor. The Washington state Democrat made the remarks on NBC's "Meet the Press," targeting Rep. Eric Swalwell of California and Rep. Tony Gonzales of Texas. Both men face active investigations, Swalwell by the Manhattan District Attorney's Office and Gonzales by the House Ethics Committee, and both face mounting pressure from within their own parties. Jayapal framed the matter as a test of institutional seriousness. As the Washington Examiner reported, she confirmed this week that she would vote to expel both men should the matter come to the floor. She also called on each to step down voluntarily. "I think we have to hold everybody accountable... that both of them need to step down from Congress and let these investigations happen." That Jayapal is willing to put a fellow Democrat's career on the chopping block alongside a Republican's gives the call more weight than the usual partisan posturing. But whether her party, or either party, actually follows through is another question entirely. Swalwell faces rape allegations and a DA investigation Swalwell, a California Democrat who is one of several candidates running to become the state's next governor, has been accused of rape by a former staffer. The ex-staffer claimed Swalwell raped her twice. He has denied the allegations, calling them "flat false" and promising to "fight." Three additional women have since come forward with similar claims. The Manhattan District Attorney's Office, led by Alvin Bragg, is now investigating. The pressure on Swalwell is not coming only from progressive members like Jayapal. Speaker Emeritus Nancy Pelosi and Rep. Jared Huffman, both California Democrats, have called on Swalwell to drop out of the governor's race and resign from Congress. Breitbart reported that House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Sen. Adam Schiff have also called for Swalwell to end his gubernatorial bid. When asked directly whether Swalwell should drop out, Jayapal did not hedge. "I absolutely do." The fact that senior Democrats are lining up against one of their own, in the middle of a competitive gubernatorial primary, tells you how seriously the party's leadership views the political liability. Whether it also reflects genuine concern for the accusers is something voters will have to judge for themselves. Gonzales admitted to an affair, then the texts surfaced Gonzales, a married Texas Republican with six children, dropped his reelection bid in March after disclosing an affair with a staffer. He admitted to the relationship and apologized. But the controversy did not end there. In April, newly released text messages appeared to show Gonzales making unsolicited sexual advances toward his campaign's political director. Those messages date to 2020. The House Ethics Committee is now investigating. The case carries a darker dimension. Regina Santos-Aviles, the former staffer with whom Gonzales had the affair, later killed herself. Gonzales has denied being the cause of her death, claiming police records indicate Santos-Aviles set herself on fire after learning her husband was gay and having an affair with her best friend. The full details of the police records and the circumstances remain unclear. Gonzales has also claimed the timing of the revelations was politically motivated. That defense may carry some appeal in a town where opposition research drops are timed for maximum damage. But it does not answer the substance of what the text messages show, or what the Ethics Committee may ultimately find. Congressional accountability has been a recurring theme on Capitol Hill this year. House Democrats have struggled to hold the line as other members face ethics investigations and federal charges, raising questions about whether either party enforces its own standards consistently. Jayapal frames it as bipartisan, but is it? Jayapal went out of her way to cast the issue in nonpartisan terms, telling NBC that the allegations cut across party lines. "This is not a partisan issue. This cuts across party line, and it is depravity of the way that women have been treated. And I'm just inspired by the courage and the bravery of the women who came forward." She also described the moment in broader terms, saying she sees a pattern of women being silenced by powerful men. "I think that what we are seeing now is an emergence of women across the country who have been dismissed, told to shut up, told to move on, who have been abused by men in powerful positions." The rhetoric is familiar. And naming one Republican alongside one Democrat gives Jayapal a shield against accusations of selective outrage. But the real test of bipartisan accountability is not one Sunday interview, it is whether Congress actually acts. As the Washington Times noted, House expulsion is the most severe form of congressional discipline and requires a two-thirds vote. It has been used only a handful of times in American history. The threshold is enormous, and the political will to meet it is almost always absent. That rarity is worth keeping in mind. Calling for expulsion on a Sunday show costs nothing. Whipping 290 votes on the House floor costs everything. And the gap between those two acts is where most congressional accountability talk goes to die. Open questions remain Several important details remain unresolved. No specific expulsion resolution has been introduced. The Manhattan DA's investigation into Swalwell is ongoing, with no public timeline for a charging decision. The House Ethics Committee probe into Gonzales likewise has no announced conclusion date. The nature of the additional allegations against Swalwell, beyond the initial ex-staffer's claim and the three women who came forward, has not been fully detailed in public reporting. And the full circumstances surrounding Santos-Aviles's death, including what police records actually show, remain murky. Meanwhile, scrutiny of sitting members' conduct extends well beyond these two cases. Separate ethics complaints have targeted other high-profile members over alleged misuse of campaign funds, and the House has faced growing pressure to demonstrate that its oversight mechanisms are more than decorative. Swalwell, for his part, has shown no sign of stepping aside. He has denied the allegations and vowed to fight. Gonzales has already exited his reelection race but remains in office. Neither man has resigned. The political dynamics are also worth watching. Swalwell's refusal to withdraw from the California governor's race puts Democratic leaders in an uncomfortable position. They have publicly called for him to go, but they have limited tools to force the issue short of an expulsion vote that almost certainly lacks the numbers to succeed. Other House members facing investigations have similarly resisted pressure to step aside, and the pattern suggests that voluntary resignation is the exception, not the rule. The accountability gap Jayapal deserves some credit for naming a member of her own party alongside the Republican. That is rarer than it should be. But the hard truth is that Congress has spent decades proving it is incapable of policing its own members with anything approaching consistency or speed. The Ethics Committee moves slowly. Expulsion votes almost never happen. Resignations come only when the political math becomes unbearable, not when the conduct demands it. And the accusers, the former staffers who came forward at real personal cost, are left waiting while Washington calculates. The pattern Jayapal describes, women dismissed, told to shut up, told to move on, is real enough. But it persists in part because the institution she serves in has built a system where powerful members can ride out nearly any allegation as long as they refuse to quit. That is not a failure of one party. It is a failure of the institution itself. Voters watching from heated hearings to ethics probes have heard the accountability talk before. What they have almost never seen is Congress actually follow through. Sunday show declarations are easy. Two-thirds votes are hard. And until Congress proves it can do the hard part, the talk is just talk. The post Jayapal says she would vote to expel Swalwell and Gonzales over sexual misconduct allegations appeared first on Conservative Institute.
Jayapal says she would vote to expel Swalwell and Gonzales over sexual misconduct allegations
Rep. Pramila Jayapal went on national television Sunday and called for two of her congressional colleagues, one Democrat, one Republican, to be removed from the House over sexual misconduct allegations, saying both men should resign and that she would vote to expel them if the question reaches the floor. The Washington state Democrat made the remarks on NBC's "Meet the Press," targeting Rep. Eric Swalwell of California and Rep. Tony Gonzales of Texas. Both men face active investigations, Swalwell by the Manhattan District Attorney's Office and Gonzales by the House Ethics Committee, and both face mounting pressure from within their own parties. Jayapal framed the matter as a test of institutional seriousness. As the Washington Examiner reported, she confirmed this week that she would vote to expel both men should the matter come to the floor. She also called on each to step down voluntarily. "I think we have to hold everybody accountable... that both of them need to step down from Congress and let these investigations happen." That Jayapal is willing to put a fellow Democrat's career on the chopping block alongside a Republican's gives the call more weight than the usual partisan posturing. But whether her party, or either party, actually follows through is another question entirely. Swalwell faces rape allegations and a DA investigation Swalwell, a California Democrat who is one of several candidates running to become the state's next governor, has been accused of rape by a former staffer. The ex-staffer claimed Swalwell raped her twice. He has denied the allegations, calling them "flat false" and promising to "fight." Three additional women have since come forward with similar claims. The Manhattan District Attorney's Office, led by Alvin Bragg, is now investigating. The pressure on Swalwell is not coming only from progressive members like Jayapal. Speaker Emeritus Nancy Pelosi and Rep. Jared Huffman, both California Democrats, have called on Swalwell to drop out of the governor's race and resign from Congress. Breitbart reported that House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Sen. Adam Schiff have also called for Swalwell to end his gubernatorial bid. When asked directly whether Swalwell should drop out, Jayapal did not hedge. "I absolutely do." The fact that senior Democrats are lining up against one of their own, in the middle of a competitive gubernatorial primary, tells you how seriously the party's leadership views the political liability. Whether it also reflects genuine concern for the accusers is something voters will have to judge for themselves. Gonzales admitted to an affair, then the texts surfaced Gonzales, a married Texas Republican with six children, dropped his reelection bid in March after disclosing an affair with a staffer. He admitted to the relationship and apologized. But the controversy did not end there. In April, newly released text messages appeared to show Gonzales making unsolicited sexual advances toward his campaign's political director. Those messages date to 2020. The House Ethics Committee is now investigating. The case carries a darker dimension. Regina Santos-Aviles, the former staffer with whom Gonzales had the affair, later killed herself. Gonzales has denied being the cause of her death, claiming police records indicate Santos-Aviles set herself on fire after learning her husband was gay and having an affair with her best friend. The full details of the police records and the circumstances remain unclear. Gonzales has also claimed the timing of the revelations was politically motivated. That defense may carry some appeal in a town where opposition research drops are timed for maximum damage. But it does not answer the substance of what the text messages show, or what the Ethics Committee may ultimately find. Congressional accountability has been a recurring theme on Capitol Hill this year. House Democrats have struggled to hold the line as other members face ethics investigations and federal charges, raising questions about whether either party enforces its own standards consistently. Jayapal frames it as bipartisan, but is it? Jayapal went out of her way to cast the issue in nonpartisan terms, telling NBC that the allegations cut across party lines. "This is not a partisan issue. This cuts across party line, and it is depravity of the way that women have been treated. And I'm just inspired by the courage and the bravery of the women who came forward." She also described the moment in broader terms, saying she sees a pattern of women being silenced by powerful men. "I think that what we are seeing now is an emergence of women across the country who have been dismissed, told to shut up, told to move on, who have been abused by men in powerful positions." The rhetoric is familiar. And naming one Republican alongside one Democrat gives Jayapal a shield against accusations of selective outrage. But the real test of bipartisan accountability is not one Sunday interview, it is whether Congress actually acts. As the Washington Times noted, House expulsion is the most severe form of congressional discipline and requires a two-thirds vote. It has been used only a handful of times in American history. The threshold is enormous, and the political will to meet it is almost always absent. That rarity is worth keeping in mind. Calling for expulsion on a Sunday show costs nothing. Whipping 290 votes on the House floor costs everything. And the gap between those two acts is where most congressional accountability talk goes to die. Open questions remain Several important details remain unresolved. No specific expulsion resolution has been introduced. The Manhattan DA's investigation into Swalwell is ongoing, with no public timeline for a charging decision. The House Ethics Committee probe into Gonzales likewise has no announced conclusion date. The nature of the additional allegations against Swalwell, beyond the initial ex-staffer's claim and the three women who came forward, has not been fully detailed in public reporting. And the full circumstances surrounding Santos-Aviles's death, including what police records actually show, remain murky. Meanwhile, scrutiny of sitting members' conduct extends well beyond these two cases. Separate ethics complaints have targeted other high-profile members over alleged misuse of campaign funds, and the House has faced growing pressure to demonstrate that its oversight mechanisms are more than decorative. Swalwell, for his part, has shown no sign of stepping aside. He has denied the allegations and vowed to fight. Gonzales has already exited his reelection race but remains in office. Neither man has resigned. The political dynamics are also worth watching. Swalwell's refusal to withdraw from the California governor's race puts Democratic leaders in an uncomfortable position. They have publicly called for him to go, but they have limited tools to force the issue short of an expulsion vote that almost certainly lacks the numbers to succeed. Other House members facing investigations have similarly resisted pressure to step aside, and the pattern suggests that voluntary resignation is the exception, not the rule. The accountability gap Jayapal deserves some credit for naming a member of her own party alongside the Republican. That is rarer than it should be. But the hard truth is that Congress has spent decades proving it is incapable of policing its own members with anything approaching consistency or speed. The Ethics Committee moves slowly. Expulsion votes almost never happen. Resignations come only when the political math becomes unbearable, not when the conduct demands it. And the accusers, the former staffers who came forward at real personal cost, are left waiting while Washington calculates. The pattern Jayapal describes, women dismissed, told to shut up, told to move on, is real enough. But it persists in part because the institution she serves in has built a system where powerful members can ride out nearly any allegation as long as they refuse to quit. That is not a failure of one party. It is a failure of the institution itself. Voters watching from heated hearings to ethics probes have heard the accountability talk before. What they have almost never seen is Congress actually follow through. Sunday show declarations are easy. Two-thirds votes are hard. And until Congress proves it can do the hard part, the talk is just talk. The post Jayapal says she would vote to expel Swalwell and Gonzales over sexual misconduct allegations appeared first on Conservative Institute.