On April 17, 2026, House GOP lawmakers narrowly defeated a Democratic resolution to end President Trump's unilateral combat authority against Iran, the fourth such rejection this week. While Trump touted a ceasefire between Hezbollah and Israel and claimed gas prices dropped after alleged nuclear concessions, Democrats like Senator Tammy Duckworth criticized the lack of contingency plans for deploying the USS Lincoln and USS Boxer. With 40 Democrats opposing aid to Israel and FISA Section 702 extension failing, the debate over the War Powers Resolution of 1973 highlights a fractured Congress struggling to check executive military expansion amid escalating tensions in the Strait of Hormuz. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
Source
|
Time
Text
Unfiltered Coverage of Congress00:14:30
That shape our nation.
Unfiltered coverage of Congress as laws are debated and decided.
Live proceedings from the United States Supreme Court.
Presidential speeches, briefings, and historic moments as they happen.
No commentary, no spin, no agenda.
Just the democratic process presented in full without interruption.
So you can watch the debates, hear every word, and make up your own mind.
C-SPAN's respected non-profit service has offered Americans unfiltered gabble-to-gabble coverage of their government in action.
C-SPAN, bringing your democracy unfiltered.
C-SPAN is brought to you by the cable, satellite, and streaming companies to provide C-SPAN as a public service.
Today, on C-SPAN Ceasefire, a bipartisan conversation on the latest developments in the Iran war and geopolitical fallout.
As the fragile ceasefire is set to expire next week, join host Dasha Burns on Ceasefire today at 7 p.m. and 10 p.m. Eastern and Pacific, only on C-SPAN.
Washington Journal is next, and we want to hear from you.
Call in.
Text us at 202-748-8003.
Leave a Facebook comment at facebook.com/slash C-SPAN or send us a tweet using at C-SPANWJ.
Washington Journal starts now.
Good morning and welcome to the Washington Journal.
On this Friday, April 17th, House GOP lawmakers yesterday narrowly defeated a Democratic-led resolution to put an end to President Trump's authority to carry out combat operations against Iran without congressional approval.
The vote in the House follows a second attempt by Democrats in March and a fourth attempt by Democrats in the Senate this week, which also failed.
This morning, your thoughts on Congress rejecting Iran war powers resolutions.
If you're a Republican, dial in at 202-748-8001.
Democrats 202-748-8000.
And Independents, 202-748-8002.
Remember, you can text if you don't want to call at 202-748-8003.
You can also post on facebook.com/slash C-SPAN or on X with the handle at C-SPANWJ.
We'll get to your thoughts on Congress rejecting war powers resolutions this week in just a minute.
Let's begin with the latest, though, on Iran.
U.S. negotiated a ceasefire between Hezbollah in Lebanon and Israel.
It was announced yesterday.
President Trump, before leaving Washington for Las Vegas, had this to say to reporters about the deal.
It's very exciting.
With Lebanon, it's very exciting.
I think we're going to have a deal.
We're going to have a meeting first time in 44 years.
And Lebanon will be meeting with Israel.
And they're probably going to do it at the White House.
When do you think they would?
Over the next week or two.
Over the next week.
And do you think this academians can read?
I do.
I think we will have an agreement between Lebanon and they're going to take care of Hezbollah.
But they're going to be working on Hezbollah right now.
But we'll have a degree between Israel, very importantly, and Lebanon.
Would you support our Independence Army as well as the USA?
Iran going to Iran going to Hezbollah.
Have Hezbollah agreed to the ceasefire?
I mean, how do you even agree?
They're all agreeing.
It's a very nice little package for about a week.
And we're not going to have lots of bombs dropping.
And we're going to see if we can make peace between Lebanon and Israel.
President Trump at the White House yesterday, Washington Post, 10-day ceasefire in Lebanon begins as Israel agrees to U.S.-backed deal.
President Donald Trump announced the agreement, which went into force Thursday evening as Pakistani mediators worked to extend a U.S.-Iran ceasefire and arrange new talks.
Now, this ceasefire between Hezbollah and Lebanon and Israel was a point that Iran wanted as part of any sort of peace deal between U.S.-Israel and Iran.
The Washington Post in their reporting this morning and the headline that we just showed you notes that the agreement was not negotiated by Hezbollah, the group that Israel had been targeting and which gave ambiguous statements about whether they would recognize it.
So more to come on that.
That's the front page of the Washington Post this morning.
The president also, when he talked to reporters yesterday before leaving, spoke about the Iran conflict and potentially of more in-person talks with Tehran.
And he also talked about the potential of him himself traveling to Pakistan for these negotiations.
Here's what he had to say.
If there's no deal, will you be willing to extend the ceasefire or will the fighting resume the president?
I would say the fighting, if there's no deal, fighting resume.
Okay, and then on gas prices, how much longer will Americans continue to see these high gas prices?
Well, they're not very high if you look at what they were supposed to be in order to get rid of a nuclear weapon with the danger that entails.
So the gas prices have come down very much over the last three, four days.
I know, you know, and that's what ABC says.
But the fact is that if you look at the stock markets up, everything's doing really well.
And the big thing we have to do is we have to make sure that Iran does not have a nuclear weapon because if they do, you want to talk about problems, you'd have problems.
So very important is that Iran does not have a nuclear weapon.
And they've agreed to that.
Iran's agreed to that.
And they've agreed to it very powerfully.
They've agreed to give us back the nuclear dust that's way underground because of the attack we made with the B-2 bombers.
So we have a lot of agreement with Iran, and I think something's going to happen very positively.
Very complicated subject.
I don't think we're waiting.
I think we're moving very fast.
It could happen pretty quickly.
How long you could sustain the blunt on the trigger rumors?
The what?
How long you could sustain Kit De Bluke on the trigger fumers?
We're doing very well with the blockade.
It's very routine for us.
The Navy is incredible.
And I think the blockade is doing very well.
No chip is even thinking about entering.
No chip is going past our natives.
Optimistic outline outlook by President Trump there yesterday at the White House before he left for Las Vegas and the latest on the negotiations with Iran.
Meanwhile, in the House, the Republicans narrowly thwarted an attempt, a second one, by Democrats to stop the president from these combat operations without congressional approval.
From the Washington Post, here is the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which Democrats in both the House and the Senate are attempting to use to bring an end to the war in Iran.
The law Democrats use to force the votes requires presidents to remove U.S. forces from any conflict that Congress has not authorized within 60 days.
Trump can obtain a 30-day extension if he certifies that it is an unavoidable military necessity.
This morning, we're getting your reaction to Congress rejecting war powers resolutions in this conflict against Iran.
From the New York Times reporting in their headline, but even as the GOP thwarted the measure, some in the party indicated that support for the conflict, now nearing its eighth week, was not open-ended and could wane as an initial statutory deadline approaches within weeks for Mr. Trump to either withdraw American troops or certify to Congress it is not yet safe for U.S. troops to withdraw.
That's the 60-day deadline after the conflict has started.
Congress, according to this law, the president needs to go to Congress and ask for either a 30-day extension or for Congress to authorize this conflict against Iran.
We're getting your thoughts this morning on the Democratic-led resolutions to stop the president from these combat operations.
We want to get your thoughts on it.
We'll get to your calls in just a minute.
Let's begin with the debate floor, though.
The debate on the floor.
Here's California Democrat Sarah Jacobs, whose district includes military bases defending the effort to limit the efforts in Iran.
Two weeks ago, thousands of San Diego military families got 48-hour deployment notices.
That means they need to be ready to drop everything to deploy to the Middle East, get their affairs in order, pack, and say goodbye to their families for a few months or maybe a year.
And don't get me wrong, this is what our service members and their families signed up for, and they are not complaining.
But it is our job in Congress and my job as a representative of the country's biggest military community to make sure that we've explored all the contingency plans, exhausted all diplomatic and non-military options, and figured out the objectives, the strategy, and the exit plan before we've asked them to.
And we have done none of that.
And while I will push for oversight and transparency about how we got here, our focus now should be on how we end this war.
But instead, President Trump is escalating.
The San Diego-based carrier, the Lincoln, is already in the region.
San Diego's USS Boxer and the 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit will be arriving soon.
And we're expecting another San Diego-based carrier, the Roosevelt, to deploy any day now.
And when they get there, they will be prime target for retaliation and charged with the difficult task of enforcing Donald Trump's cockmame blockade of Iran's ports and partial blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, which will put a lot of strain on an already fragile ceasefire.
Donald Trump is getting our country further entrenched in another forever war in the Middle East.
And the longer we stay, the harder and more expensive it will be to get out.
So yes, we should support our troops.
That means doing our jobs and asking these questions before they are asked to sacrifice their lives.
That's why Congress needs to do our job, or else we will keep paying the costs in terms of lives lost and taxpayer dollars.
Democrat Sarah Jacobs, do you agree with her that Congress needs to do its job on reining in President Trump in this conflict against Iran?
From the New York Times reporting that after the vote, Representative Brian Mast of Florida, the Republican chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, signaled that patience within his party was running thin and that a resolution to halt the military campaign could very well pass in the coming weeks.
The House could have a different vote count after 60 days, Mr. Mass said, alluding to a May 1st deadline that falls 60 days after Mr. Trump formally notified Congress last month of the military operation in Iran.
Asked if the vote would be closer then, Mr. Mass predicted that it would.
Had just one additional Republican switched positions yesterday and voted in favor of the resolution, it would have advanced.
Instead, the House voted 214 to 213 against bringing the war powers resolution to the floor, preserving the broad discretion Republicans have afforded to Mr. Trump to direct the U.S. military campaign in the Middle East.
Listen to Brian Mast, the chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, on the floor yesterday.
When Joe Biden engaged, it's because the Houthis, a direct arm of Iran, was attacking the United States of America ships, merchant marine vessels, doing what they've been doing for decades, picking a fight.
President Biden launched Operation Prosperity Garden against Iranian-backed Houthis, and that went on, not for 30 days, not for 60 days, not for 90 days, not for six months, went on for almost a year until January 2025, from November 23 till January of 25.
And what happened during that time?
How many times did my Democrat colleagues or Republicans offer a war powers resolution to say, remove all U.S. forces from this fight against Iran?
I have the counter down here, zero.
It wasn't like what happened with President Trump.
President Trump defending against an imminent threat.
What was this imminent threat?
It wasn't just vessels being shot at.
It was, very specifically, not long before that, three Americans killed at a place called Tower 22.
Sergeant Rivers, 46 years old, serving in the U.S. Army Reserves.
Sergeant Sanders, 24 years old, serving in the U.S. Army Reserves.
Sergeant Moffat, 23 years old, serving in the U.S. Army Reserves.
Real imminent threat.
Our bases in Syria and Iraq and other places being attacked.
But before President Trump ever conducted any level of operation, Democrats introduced direct the removal of U.S. forces from hostilities with Iran.
A war power introduced before anything ever happened.
Florida Republican Brian Mask, chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee in the House, defending the president's conflict with Iran, but noting in the papers today, he's quoted several places saying, patience is wearing thin in the Republican Party.
It's now your turn to tell the lawmakers here in Washington what you would like them to do on the conflict with Iran after rejecting for the second time in the House and the fourth time in the Senate this week Iran war powers resolutions.
War Powers and Patriotism00:14:39
Callan New York, Democratic caller, you are up first.
Good morning.
Good morning.
Good morning, C-SPAN.
Good morning to all of you watching C-SPAN.
I am just really puzzled by this false sense of outrage that we are displaying about the idea of going to war without authorization.
I mean, this is the way that this country's history has been since 1941.
And where the President of the United States wakes up in the morning and for the sake of national security, he decides who he wants to bomb and who he wants to kill and who he wants to tell about it.
And we have tolerated this mode of operation for Democratic presidents and Republican presidents.
And for those of us who are trying to figure out what's in Trump's mind, I'm sure that in a way he sees his actions through this prism.
He is just simply doing what Eisenhower and Theodore Roosevelt and Johnson and Nixon were doing all through their administrations, keeping the American people in the dark and confusing the enemy and breaking the law.
And I'd also like to say that.
So, Cal, let me jump in because times can change.
So, do you want Congress to voice their opposition and stand together and require the president to seek congressional approval?
Well, I think that that, I think Congress's attitude indicates this kind of guilt and shame that they know that they have for allowing presidents, plural, presidents, to get away with this kind of action.
And it's far too late for them to reach for some higher intellectual high ground to say, well, you know, well, why doesn't he just come on television with maps and explanations about how it's going to cost and when it's going to end?
And it's like, well, that's what Nixon did with Cambodia.
That's what Johnson did with Laos and Vietnam.
And that wasn't any more constructive, you know, for Congress to be outraged and say that they're out of the loop.
They have given up this power.
All right, Cal, let me show viewers what you're talking about.
This is Business Insider.
And with the headline, 11 times U.S. presidents launched military operations without congressional approval.
And as you were just saying, President Nixon then goes on television with a map of Cambodia.
It's right there on the screen.
I wish I had a screen.
I'm just talking on the phone, but thanks for putting it in.
It's just amazing.
I would say 11 is a very, very shockingly low number.
I think that as history goes on and as people dig through papers, I would say that this kind of military activity, if you want to dissect it legally, probably happens monthly, you know, every six months.
It's just the way that we as a nuclear power have conducted ourselves ever since with this kind of arrogance, with this kind of disregard for the law.
If I could, I'd just like to say one other thing.
Hey, Cal, I'm going to move on because we've got other folks waiting.
Robert in Greenville, Texas, Independent.
It's your turn, Robert.
Well, thank you very much for taking my call.
You had a great intro.
I've got to commend C-SPAN laying out the facts regarding how the War Powers Act is and obligations of Congress to vote on it.
Well, not vote on that, but vote on authorizing the war.
War Powers is a separate add-on.
Maybe some remedies instead of bickering over voting four times or whatever on this particular issue.
Maybe a solution would be just simply having pre-authorization for the use of military force, which only Congress can declare war.
And obviously, we're at war.
And, you know, we do have a window where they have to get authorization after 60 days.
But either way, a pre-authorization to initiate war should be part of the War Powers Act and, you know, should be something that is presented to Congress.
And once hostilities start, you know, part of that should be Going before the American people and announcing it.
And, you know, you can have Congress do that, or you, you know, probably just thing, you know, if it's justified, have the president lay out the justifications.
Robert, it sounds like you'd want to see a law passed that would force the president to take that action.
Simply modify the War Powers Act.
You simply modify it where you need pre-authorization to initiate hostilities.
Okay.
Robert, with his thoughts in Greenville, Texas.
Tom, Manchester, Kentucky, you're Republican.
Tom, what do you say?
Yes, ma'am.
Thank you very much for taking my call, ma'am.
I'm not a regular caller, and I'm not definitely not going to be one of your whiners that calls in every morning.
Anyway, listen, I'm really appreciative of men from New York there.
I'm a Republican, but anyway, I'll give credit due where it's due.
But listen, I feel this way.
Without none of these people calling in, it was sitting in on any of them mental meetings.
They were never in any kind of meeting at all.
They don't know what's going on and what prompted Trump to do what he done.
The situation called for what he done.
We've been tolerating them people since back in the 40s.
I'm a Vietnam veteran, 23 months in Vietnam, and I can't remember Congress or any of the other people ever raising the cane that they're raising since Trump took office.
Have we turned into a nation of whiners?
People that just want to...
Your perspective as a veteran is interesting.
I want you to listen to the Democratic leader in the House, Hakeem Jeffries of New York, highlighting bipartisan military veterans opposed to U.S. efforts in Iran.
Here's what he had to say, and I'll get your reaction on the other side.
There are patriots on both sides of this conflict, of this issue.
As a matter of fact, we know there are combat veterans on the Republican side and the combat veterans on the Democratic side who may share different views about the nature of this conflict.
Jason Crowe is a combat veteran.
He opposes this reckless war of choice.
Are you going to question his patriotism?
Pat Ryan is a combat veteran who opposes this reckless war of choice.
You question his patriotism?
Mike Thompson served in Vietnam, combat veteran, opposes this reckless war of choice.
You question his patriotism as well?
Why don't you just argue the merits of your position as opposed to attacking the patriotism of people on the Democratic side of the aisle?
When as far as I'm concerned, the most patriotic thing that we can do is stand up to ensure that our men and women in uniform aren't being recklessly sent into a costly war of choice, more than 12 of whom have already lost their lives, hundreds of whom have been seriously injured.
Let's just argue the merits of Donald Trump's reckless and costly war of choice.
Tom and Manchester, Kentucky, respond there to the Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries.
Well, first off, I'm not questioning anybody's patriotism.
And the second thing, I don't like Jeffrey.
Jeffers out there, the man standing for speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
And as far as I'm concerned, he's playing politics.
All right, well, put aside your dislike for him.
What about the argument?
He has no argument.
I'm going back to when I was 17-year-old, turned 19-year-old in Vietnam.
Then you frame it fast forward in all the wars.
There's casualty.
There's a price to be paid when you go to war.
Monetary and human.
You know, there's devastation, there's sickness.
I mean, there's a lot of stuff that goes on wrong with it.
I don't have an education, but what that man from New York, I appreciate that man.
He's a Democrat.
I'm a Republican.
But I don't even have, I don't even, I don't even like to look at Jefferson.
He's a double-minded man.
And as far as the scripture is concerned, a double-minded man's unstable.
The man's unstable.
Okay, Tom there, a Republican in Kentucky and a veteran.
Back to this vote in the House yesterday, the second time Democrats have tried to force a vote that would prohibit the president from continuing combat operations against Iran.
Thursday's vote failed, 213 to 214, with one Republican voting present.
Here is from the New York Times: Thursday's vote marked the second time the House has acted on legislation aimed at constraining the president's authority to wage war against Iran and fell a day after the Senate, for the fourth time, failed to advance a similar resolution.
Two Republicans again broke with their party.
Representative Thomas Massey of Kentucky was the only GOP lawmaker to vote in favor of the resolution, while Representative Warren Davidson of Ohio, who previously backed a similar measure, switched his vote to present, declining to register a position.
Representative Nancy Mace, Republican of South Carolina, who said she has grave concerns about the handling of the war, did not vote.
The New York Times reports that many Republicans have cited the war powers law in arguing that Mr. Trump has broad latitude to do what he considers necessary in Iran, at least until that deadline passes the 60-day deadline.
The statute affords the president an extension period of up to 30 days if he certifies that unavoidable military necessity requires continuing operations to ensure the safe withdrawal of U.S. forces.
We'll get your take on that note as well this morning.
Should the president request a 30-day extension?
And do you believe there is unavoidable military necessity?
Neil in Scranton, Pennsylvania, Democratic caller.
Hi, Neil.
Good morning.
Go ahead.
Good morning.
I must be missing something.
It said I keep hearing Congress has the only power to declare war.
Apparently, that's not true.
If Trump decides to do something, first this incompetent administration decides to do something crazy, why does the military listen to him if Congress is the only one that could do this?
So I must be missing something there.
Your point is that he's the commander-in-chief.
Yeah, but I keep hearing Congress has the only power to do this.
So why does the military listen to the president if Congress has to approve it?
It doesn't make any sense.
So, well, I mean, it's a complete disaster.
This administration is horrible.
Hexit, it's just a disaster.
And in November, we got to vote them out.
Thank you.
Neil, listen to what Florida Republican Randy Fine had to say during this debate on the House floor.
He made a historical case for not limiting the president's current efforts in Iran.
For 47 years, there has been a war involving Iran.
It's been a war against the United States.
It started 47 years ago with death to America, and when they chanted it, they meant it.
It started in 1979 when they took our hostages.
In 1983, when Iran killed 241 Americans, including 220 Marines.
Iran recognized they were at war with us.
In 1996 at Cobar Towers, when Iran, in their war for death to America, killed 19 more Americans.
In 2003 to 2011, when Iran, thinking they were at war with America, killed over 600 of our soldiers that were in Iraq.
And on October 7th, 2023, Iran, realizing death to America, war with America, killed 46 Americans that were living in Israel.
But Iran has not just been at war with us, they've been at war with their own people.
And we can hear tears for the schoolchildren that died, but we do not hear the tears for the 35,000 Iranians that we know of that they killed in January.
We don't hear the cries for the Iranian people because of their war with their own people that has kept the internet off in their country for months now.
And we will hear we should just have more diplomacy.
47 years of diplomacy is not enough.
Make no mistake.
Iran uses diplomacy as a weapon to create cover for their nuclear program.
Representative Randy Fon on the House floor yesterday after Republicans thwarted an effort by Democrats to prohibit the president from continuing with combat operations in Iran.
Breakdown Vote on Party Lines00:03:01
The Washington Post has a full page in their newspaper this morning, breakdown of the vote.
War Powers Vote goes on party lines and they list every Republican and every Democrat how they voted.
They note at the top that those opposed included one Democrat, Jared Golden of Maine, who is in a purple district, always in a tight race.
He voted with all the Republicans, except for on the other side of the aisle, as we noted, Thomas Massey, the only Republican of Kentucky, Thomas Massey of Kentucky, the only Republican who voted in support of the war powers resolution.
And as we said, Warren Davidson switched his vote to president, and Nancy Mace, who has concerns, didn't vote at all.
Party breakdown, vote breakdown by party in the Washington Post this morning.
Laura in Washington, a Republican, we'll hear from you next.
What's your message to Congress after rejecting war powers resolutions in both the House and the Senate this week?
Well, I feel that if they actually consulted the U.S. Constitution, they would have far better standing with most people because the Constitution gives the president, the Commander-in-Chief, the authority and responsibility to strike an imminent danger.
And for decades, they have been in imminent danger.
And he doesn't have to announce it.
That would be like, you know, giving away the whole thing.
We have a Democratic Party, in my opinion, that is against this country, that hates America and Americans.
They want the power, and that's all they want.
They want the power, most of all, they want the money.
But in my opinion, they violate the U.S. Constitution.
They're fighting it.
They're not accepting the fact that this is America and we are a constitutional country, but U.S. constitutional.
And They want to constantly attack the authority of our president.
He's a duly elected president.
And he's going by the U.S. Constitution.
And the U.S. Constitution gives him full authority and right to be able to strike at an imminent danger.
We're not at battle anymore.
We don't have any combat boots on there.
We're not dropping bombs.
We're not doing it.
We're doing nothing.
Okay.
So basically, the war is over unless they decide that they don't want, you know, to be reasonable and rational.
Iran.
So that's my opinion.
And I kind of am so fed up with the Democratic Party and their constant attack on our country.
I love our country.
Okay.
And that's my opinion.
Locked and Loaded for Conflict00:09:16
Thank you.
Laura and Washington stayed at their Republic.
And yesterday morning, if you were watching the Washington Journal, you heard the Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and the Joint Chief of Staff General Dan Kaine hold what is turning out to be a weekly briefing, the two of them giving an update on the conflict with Iran.
The Guardian's headline, Hegseth, says, U.S. is locked and loaded to finish job of destroying Iran energy grid.
Here's what he told the American people yesterday.
To the CAH leadership and IRGC leadership, we're watching you.
Our capabilities are not the same, our military and yours.
Remember, this is not a fair fight.
And we know what military assets you are moving and where you are moving them to.
While you are digging out, which is exactly what you're doing, digging out of bombed out and devastated facilities, we are only getting stronger.
You are digging out your remaining launchers and missiles with no ability to replace them.
You have no defense industry.
No ability to replenish your offensive or defensive capabilities.
You only have what you have.
You know that, and we know that.
You can move things around, but you can't actually rebuild.
You can dig out for now, but you can't reconstitute.
But we can.
We are reloading with more power than ever before and better intelligence, even more importantly, better intelligence than ever before as you expose yourself with your movement to our watchful eye.
We are locked and loaded on your critical dual-use infrastructure, on your remaining power generation, and on your energy industry.
We'd rather not have to do it, but we're ready to go at the command of our president and at the push of a button.
The Defense Secretary there, Pete Hegseth, saying that the U.S. is ready to continue conflict with Iran should this pause in fighting not yield a peace deal, saying that the U.S. is locked and loaded.
Meanwhile, the U.S. also announced yesterday a blockade of any ships in the Strait of Hormuz.
And here's the Wall Street Journal headline.
Trump increases economic pressure on Iran.
Trump's betting economic pain will finally force Iran to reopen the strait.
With crude exports from Iranian ports effectively stopped up, the country will be deprived of a large chunk of its oil revenues.
It could also be forced to start shutting down oil wells within weeks as it runs out of storage space, a costly and damaging prospect that could impair production for years to come.
U.S. officials said Thursday that the blockade, initially focused on ships headed to and from Iranian ports, would expand to cover all so-called shadow fleet vessels that serve Iran's oil exports.
The Pentagon said it was prepared to board those ships wherever they are in the world.
More on the blockade coming up here in the Washington Journal.
We'll read more reporting from the national newspapers.
Back to your calls, though, on Congress rejecting Iran war powers resolutions this week for the second time in the House and the fourth time in the Senate.
Keith, Jamestown, North Carolina, Republican.
Hi, Keith.
Yeah, I just want to say that I think it's pretty disgusting the number of Democratic Americans that want to see America lose.
They like to see America lose because they don't like Donald Trump, their president.
Nicole in Michigan, Democratic Party.
Nicole, go ahead.
Yes, I would say to Keith that I believe that we are all Democratic Americans.
And as far as the War Powers Act goes, I'm thinking, you know, if Donald Trump wants to extend the 30 days, then he should try to do so because according to our laws, Congress should have been able to technically, you know, stop what he's been doing already.
Okay.
Jim, Winter Park, Florida, Republican.
Jim, what do you say?
Hi, good morning, Greta.
Good morning.
The callers this morning have been very, very good.
One of the things that I would like to say is: first of all, the difference between the presidents, like you showed, Nixon, you talked about Johnson, you talked about FDR.
The difference with those presidents was that they were men that were respected by both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party as our president.
And what we have now is we have a Democratic Party that hates, hates the President of the United States.
They would not sign anything that he tries to put through.
They don't want a War Powers Act.
They want to stop his ability to do anything.
Now, let me just make my point.
That was what I just wanted to get out.
All these people that are calling in and they're talking about, you know, we went in without with no reason.
47 years of doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome is a sign of insanity.
We can be diplomats for the next 50 years.
I want them to sit down and I want them to write a letter to their future generations, their grandchildren, their great-grandchildren, and explain to people why we let Iran make a nuclear weapon that could attack us and finally did attack their generation.
Now, I mean, it is really ridiculous.
And I have one last thing I want to ask, and I want everybody to just think about it.
Start using your gray matter rather than just being a political person.
If FDR had the opportunity to go back into the early 30s when he saw what Hitler was doing, do you think he might have done what Trump has done to Iran to stop the 420,000 American soldiers that were killed during the Second World War?
Do you think he might have attacked Germany to take them down before they got to the point where they started the Holocaust?
They killed millions of Jews.
They killed thousands of Americans.
And the second part of that question is: do you think that Japan would have looked at the American people as we were beating the crap out of Germany and said, you know, a good idea for us to do today is bomb Pearl Harbor.
So I am really sick of Democrats turning around and saying that Trump didn't have a reason to do this.
He had 47 years worth of reason with five presidents saying we have to do something about it.
And what did we do about it?
We did nothing.
Jim, let me ask you a question then before we let you go.
If President Biden had asked the Republicans in the House and the Senate to get behind him in doing a similar combat operation with Israel against Iran, do you think Republicans would have voted with President Biden?
I bet you they would have done it because I think the Republican Party is a party that has some people that have gray matter that they use rather than hating the president that was in the office.
But I will say that in my opinion, Joe Biden didn't do anything during his four years.
Somebody else was in behind him with his hand up his back moving his mouth because Joe Biden was completely, he did nothing.
How many times did he come in front of the public and talk on television?
How many times?
Jim, before we go too deep down that road, I want to stick to the Congress rejecting the war powers resolution.
That is our conversation this morning here on the Washington Journal until 9 a.m. Eastern Time.
At that point, we're going to bring you live to Capitol Hill because the Health and Human Services Secretary, RFK Jr., will be testifying for the second time this week on the budget for the Health and Human Services Department.
He was up on Capitol Hill yesterday, and we covered it in its entirety then.
He was asked about the measles outbreak in Utah and other health policy issues.
Today, 9 a.m. Eastern Time, right here on C-SPAN, you can watch.
You can also download our free video mobile app, C-SPAN Now, if you're on the go and you need to leave the House, and also online on demand later today, if you miss it at c-span.org.
Today he'll be before the House Education and Workforce Committee.
I also want to let you know what happened in the House very early this morning.
Failed FISA Extension Debate00:03:05
The House was scheduled to be in session today at 9 a.m. Eastern Time.
They were supposed to begin their legislative day today.
But after a failed vote on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, known as FISA in Section 702, the House left Washington.
We had two members of Congress that were slated to join us this morning, and they were unable to do so after the House changed up its day.
Here is from Punch Bowl this morning.
The FISA flop, plus Republicans can't stop fighting each other.
An audacious play by Speaker Mike Johnson to pass a five-year extension of Section 702 of FISA failed spectacularly just before 1.30 a.m., leaving House GOP leaders firmly stuck over how to address concerns from rank-and-file Republicans on the surveillance program.
House Republicans saved face, kind of, with a unanimous consent passage of a two-week extension of FISA authorities.
But that wasn't before the Johnson-authored compromise was rejected by a dozen Republicans.
In a nod to a far-right hardliners, GOP leaders posted a compromise FISA amendment just before 11 p.m. that would have strengthened criminal penalties for misuse of the program, included some warrant language that Democrats say merely codifies existing law, and enhanced congressional access to the FISA courts.
Representative Clay Higgins, a Republican of Louisiana, a Freedom Caucus member who led the charges, led the charge for the changes, called it a solid bill and urged lawmakers to support the bill we have hammered out.
Higgins' plea was for naught.
A group of Republicans rebelled on the floor and soundly rejected Johnson's compromise, joining with Democrats to vote it down by a 200 to 220 margin.
An eclectic mix of Republicans rejected Johnson's proposal.
Representatives Brian Fitzpatrick, Pennsylvania, Andy Harris, Maryland, Darren LaHood, Illinois, Thomas Massey, Kentucky, Marionette Miller-Meeks of Iowa, Zach Nunn, Iowa, Andy Ogles, Tennessee, Scott Perry of Pennsylvania, John Rose of Tennessee, Keith Self, who represents a district in Texas, and Mike Turner of Ohio, Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey.
Rebellious Republicans then joined with Democrats again to vote down a rule to consider the clean 18-month FISA extension originally sought by President Donald Trump and GOP leaders.
20 Republicans voted no on a rule, a remarkable rejection.
Led by Representative McGovern, Massachusetts, top Democrat on the Rules Committee, Democrats blasted Johnson and Republican leaders for the proposed five-year FISA extension.
So last night, before leaving town, they were able to, by unanimous consent, extend FISA, Section 702, which was set to expire Friday, for two weeks.
Rejection of Clean FISA Rule00:09:48
Section 702 allows intelligence agencies to conduct warrantless surveillance of non-citizens based outside the United States.
Some U.S. communications can appear in collections if Americans are talking with non-and data collected is stored for years and is searchable, can appear in collections if Americans are talking with non-U.S. citizens overseas.
And the third bullet point on this is data collected is stored for years in a searchable database that intelligence agencies can tap as part of other investigations.
That's from Axios' reporting on this Section 702.
So the debate continues in Washington.
Tim in Kentucky, Democratic caller.
Tim, let's hear from you on Iran war powers resolutions.
What do you think?
100% agree that the War Powers Act should be voted on.
It looks like I'm in agreeance with what the Democrats are doing.
100%.
This guy, Trump, he needs to be reined in.
He's just doing whatever in the heck he wants, and he needs to be reined in.
Tim, with his thoughts, calling for the president to be reigned in.
Do you agree or disagree?
Congress rejecting war powers resolutions twice this week.
It was the second attempt by Democrats in the House and the fourth attempt by Democrats in the Senate.
Let's go to Robert, who's next in Nashville, Tennessee, independent.
Robert, go ahead.
Yeah, we are spinning ourselves into oblivion with these wars.
It's mind-boggling, the hypocrisy of supposedly fiscally conservative people like Republicans who just totally ignore the cost of these kinds of wars.
Our foreign policy is being led by paranoid people who are basically a bunch of wimps.
You know, they're so scared of Iran and we are behaving based on false premise.
Iran is not going to shoot a nuke at us.
Okay, because they know, all right, that they would be vaporized the next day if they did that.
As far as the Congress, you know, when Bush and Cheney were pushing for us to go into Iraq, there was only two people in Congress who voted against that.
That tells you all you need to know.
These people in Congress, all they care about is their position of power.
There's very few people up there who are trying to do the right thing.
Okay.
Robert Washington Post front page this morning.
House narrowly rejects resolution directing Trump to end hostilities in Iran.
We'll go to Jamie next, Garden City, Missouri Republican.
Hi, Jamie.
Good morning.
The president can wind up this war within 60 or 90 days without the War Powers Resolution Act, which is what he said he was going to do in and out.
The thing is, you can't win this war.
It's a ground war.
He went to war on behalf of Israel.
And like Charlie Kirk said, you shouldn't do it.
We can't afford it.
It's a billion-dollar a day war.
We're $40 trillion in debt.
And as for FISA, we don't need the government spying on U.S. citizens without a warrant.
That's ridiculous.
Jim Jordan and Trump was absolutely against the resolution or the FISA.
And now that Trump's in office, they're not against it anymore.
I don't like that.
It's against our Constitution, in my opinion.
Thank you.
Hey, Jamie, before you go, I want to read from the Washington Post and they're reporting.
They say, Trump predicted shortly after the war started that it would be over within four or five weeks.
But the 60-day deadline, which arrives May 1st, is rapidly approaching.
That's the 60 days that you're talking about, Jamie.
And it says that Congressman Meeks, who's the top Democrat on the Foreign Affairs Committee on Tuesday, noted that the White House is also getting to, quote, have no, have to come to Congress for the money soon, a reference to an expected request from the White House for additional funding to continue military action against Iran.
A supplemental is what they call it here in Washington for emergency spending.
And they have to come to Congress for this $200 billion that they want.
Jamie, your reaction to that.
We're $40 trillion in debt.
Like Charlie Kirk said, you can't win this war.
We've been in Afghanistan.
We've been in Syria.
We're going on in Libya.
We never win.
It's an unwinnable war.
The region is too large.
They're too rooted down.
They weren't giving us imminent threat.
We started a war we cannot finish.
And it's going to devastate our economy.
And we're not going to be the global leader because of it, in my opinion.
Okay.
Jamie, did you know that President Trump will be speaking at Turning Point USA today, Charlie Kirk's group, conservative young voters that he'll be talking to in Arizona?
Did you know about that?
I did, but Charlie Kirk was against the war.
What the turning point is doing now is not Charlie Kirk's vision at all.
They act like they didn't know, but I watched the Charlie Kirk show, and he listed 100 reasons why, no, don't do this.
He went to the president.
He begged him not to go to war with Iran.
We can't afford it.
We can't win it.
The petrodollar will not raise.
We will not be the superpower because we can't win this war.
All right.
Jamie there, Republican in Garden City, Missouri, with her thoughts.
As we said, the Senate has attempted to take up a war powers resolution in that chamber four times The weeks before and during this conflict with Iran.
And the Washington Post notes this morning that some Senate Republicans have gone further.
Senator John Curtis, Republican of Utah, has said he will not support more funding for military operations against Iran unless Congress declares war.
Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, up for re-election, said Congress needs to authorize the conflict if it exceeds 60 days or if the U.S. deploys ground troops, which Trump has not ruled out.
Listen to the Senate floor debate.
Here is Tammy Duckworth, Democrat of Illinois and a Rock War veteran who forced the war prowers vote, delivering a speech on the Senate floor yesterday, excuse me, that was Wednesday, on the stakes of the war for U.S. service members.
When asked to justify his illegal actions, Donald Trump's tried to hide his cowardice behind our hero's courage.
He's tried to act as if questioning why we're at war is the same as questioning the skill and bravery of our troops themselves.
It isn't.
And I'm here to call bullshit on the President of the United States because I know that our military will always do the best job possible.
Look, unlike Trump, I actually know what it's like to leave your blood soaking into the desert sand a half a world away.
So I know what it's like.
I know what it's like and what is at stake for the troops this administration is sending into harm's way.
We must safeguard their valor and their professionalism by doing our jobs.
I can tell you this: it's a whole lot easier to cover your eyes and order other Americans to sacrifice their children and sacrifice themselves if you don't have to do any of the sacrificing yourself.
It's easier to send other people's children to fight in a war if you know your own children are cozy in a penthouse suite somewhere.
It's easier to ignore the everyday realities of war from inside the hallowed halls of the White House.
We've got McDonald's being door dashed to the Oval Office.
But it's nearly impossible.
It's nearly impossible if you've been actually outside the wire yourself.
So I've come to the floor today to keep true a promise I first made over two decades ago.
I ran for Congress, not because I wanted to be in Congress, not because I wanted to be a Congressman or a senator.
I ran for Congress to honor the men and women who carried me out of that bloody war zone.
I made a promise that when the drums of war started beating again, I would be in a position to make sure that our elected officials fully consider the true cause of war, not just in terms of money, but in human lives and in the sacrifices of the men and women who wear the colors of this great nation.
Senator Tammy Duckworth, with an emotional speech on the Senate floor, the Senate rejecting for the fourth time in a war powers resolution.
During that debate, they also was an amendment on support for Israel, military support for Israel.
Chaos and Childlike President00:07:38
From the Washington Times front page this morning, party support for Israel crumbles.
80% now view it unfavorably.
The consensus around stopping U.S. military aid to Israel has shifted dramatically within the Democratic Party in just a couple of years.
To put it into perspective, the push from Senator Bernie Sanders, Vermont Independent, to block that aid started with just 19 votes in 2024.
Last year, that jumped to 27.
This week, it hit 40.
40 Democrats voted against military aid to Israel.
Mr. Sands called it a milestone.
He said the growing opposition is sending more U.S. military aid to Israel to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his horrific illegal wars reflects the true will of the American people.
It is another sign that the party's DNA is changing fast and that evolution will be tested in the midterm elections this fall.
Back to your calls, Congress rejecting Iran war powers resolution.
Harley's next in Indiana, excuse me, Democratic caller.
Let's hear from you.
Yes.
I support, I'm very proud of them for standing up and saying no to this president I mean is putting our economy in dire straits.
He's talking about gas prices not being that bad.
This jumped a dollar where I live since he started this war.
And I, yeah, he has the right to start what if he has proof there's imminent threat.
I don't believe there was.
I believe it was a win.
In fact, he said it on national TV.
It's a gut feeling.
I think we need to have more than a gut feeling to go into war and spend billions of dollars daily to support that war.
Congress is the right thing.
I'm proud of him for finally standing up against this man.
I'm proud of him for listening to the majority of the American people, not the 30% that Trump has in his pocket.
All right.
Harley, a Democratic caller from Indiana.
John is an independent calling from California.
Hi, John.
Hello.
Thank you for taking my call.
And I am a very proud American.
I want to just read for a moment the joint comprehensive plan of action that was signed during the Obama administration in 2015.
Iran reaffirms that under no circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop, or acquire any nuclear weapons.
That is exactly what Trump may get this time after hundreds and hundreds of lives have been killed, billions and billions of dollars, off or not.
The only reason that Trump tore up that piece of paper is because Obama got it signed.
And that's how vindictive that Trump is.
Of course, the Republicans in both the House and the Senate have abrogated their commitment to follow the Constitution to serve and protect the Constitution.
They are absent without leave.
And now they're just chicken, little spineless people that are just running around trying to, you know, figure out what to do with a president that is off the rails.
Mike in Dallas, North Carolina, a Republican.
Morning, Mike.
Good morning.
Bretta?
Yes, Mike.
We're listening to you.
We're counting on Congress to do their job.
When's the last time Congress has done their job?
I mean, they're so Congress and Senate, they're so they're they're they're more interested being on your talk show or CNN or Fox.
You know, they want notoriety and publicity.
I mean, they're out there just, it's all about me.
And, you know, we're counting on, this is funny.
This is hilarious as hell.
I'm sorry, Greg, I didn't mean to say that, but you got to look at it like, I mean, when has Congress or the Senate done their job the last time?
All right.
Mike understood your point.
Jose, New York, Independent.
Yes, good morning, Bill.
I just want to, I want to get to the Iraqi thing, but I just want to say, you know, not all Republicans, but some of them get up here and try to lecture us with same talking points, repeated conversations.
It's almost like to hypnotize you.
And it seems like they don't even have an independent thought themselves.
So stop lecturing America and really look at it for what it is.
We have a childlike president.
And this is killing us because he is winging stuff.
And Congress needs to do their job.
Why do you think all the presidents before?
And I think back in Reagan or O'Connor, when the Iranians had hostages, we still didn't bubble them up because all these presidents understood something and the Congress did as well.
This Congress is failing terribly because they're allowing this kid who has a fourth way education, the way he behaves.
He called people, he criticized people because he don't know how to answer with any true educational answer.
He'll criticize them, calling their names.
And now look where we're into.
Our country has been in chaos.
The money that's being spent, you don't cut children's adults on health care.
You have cut food programs for these people for these poor kids.
Like all this stuff don't mean nothing to them.
And Jose, Jose, as we approach May 1st, the 60-day deadline for the president to seek congressional authority for any sort of military action, what do you hope the vote is on May 1st?
I think it should be a no all the way around.
It should just be a no because a no to the conflict.
So in other words, approve.
It's time to apologize to all our allies, first of all, because you didn't ask them that this is what your plans are.
You didn't go to Congress.
We're going to be a country of law.
Follow the law.
All right, speaking of our allies, Kirst Armer, the British prime minister, along with French President Emmanuel Macron, are meeting today in France to talk about the blockade the president has put in place in the Strait of Hormuz, Europe affected dramatically by the blockade.
And we could hear from those two leaders later on this morning after they gather to talk about what they would like to see and how they can get around this blockade to help Europe with their oil and gas prices and imports and exports.
House Rejects Iran Resolutions00:14:22
We're at the top of the hour here, 8 a.m. Eastern Time on the East Coast.
We're talking about Congress for the second time in the House, the fourth time in the Senate, rejecting Iran war powers resolutions this week.
The House and Senate have left town.
Lawmakers are not here on this Friday morning for legislative business after the Democratic-led effort in both in the House and the Senate failed.
Republicans thwarted these challenges by the Democratic Party.
But as the papers noted this morning, Republicans' patience is running thin.
Some of them quoted as saying the next votes that could take place in the weeks to come, especially as they approach that 60-day deadline, could see more Republicans defecting and stopping the president, requiring the president to seek congressional approval for any combat operations against Iran.
President Trump spoke to reporters before he left for Las Vegas yesterday and touted the 10-day ceasefire deal brokered by the United States between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Here's what he had to say.
It's very exciting.
With Lebanon, it's very exciting.
I think we're going to have a deal.
We're going to have a meeting first time in 44 years.
And Lebanon will be meeting with Israel and they're probably going to do it at the White House.
When do you think they would be?
Over the next week or two.
Over the next week.
And do you think this academians can read?
I do.
I think we will have an agreement between Lebanon and they're going to take care of Hezbollah.
But they're going to be working on Hezbollah right now.
But we'll have a degree between Israel, very importantly, and Lebanon.
Will you support our Lebanese army as well as Hezbollah?
Iran going to Hezbollah.
Iran's going to be aware of the ceasefire.
Has Hezbollah agreed to this ceasefire?
I mean, how do you even...
They're all agreeing.
It's a very nice little package for about a week, and we're not going to have lots of bombs dropping.
And we're going to see if we can make peace between Lebanon and Israel.
President Trump on this 10-day ceasefire brokered by the United States between Israel and Lebanon.
The Washington Post notes this morning that the agreement was not negotiated by Hezbollah, the group that Israel had been targeting, and which gave ambiguous statements about whether they would recognize this ceasefire deal.
Back to the president at the White House yesterday, he also talked about the conflict with Iran and the potential of more in-person talks with Tehran.
The president also saying that he may travel to Pakistan where negotiations are taking place to sign some sort of deal.
Now, this ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon, that is something that Iran has said needs to be in place before they would agree to any peace deal between U.S., Israel, and Iran.
Here's the president on the war with Iran.
If there's no deal, will we be willing to extend the ceasefire or will the fighting resume the president?
I would say the fighting, if there's no deal, fighting resumes.
Okay, and then on gas prices, how much longer will Americans continue to see these high gas prices?
Well, they're not very high.
If you look at what they were supposed to be in order to get rid of a nuclear weapon with the danger that entails, so the gas prices have come down very much over the last three, four days.
I know, you know, and that's what ABC says.
But the fact is that if you look at the stock markets up, everything is doing really well.
And the big thing we have to do is we have to make sure that Iran does not have a nuclear weapon because if they do, you want to talk about problems, you'd have problems.
So very important is that Iran does not have a nuclear weapon.
And they've agreed to that.
Iran's agreed to that.
And they've agreed to it very powerfully.
They've agreed to give us back the nuclear dust that's way underground because of the attack we made with the B-2 bombers.
So we have a lot of agreement with Iran, and I think something's going to happen very positive.
Very complicated subject.
It's I don't think we're waiting.
I think we're moving very fast.
It could happen pretty quickly.
How long you could sustain the blockade on the string of rumors?
The what?
How long you could sustain keep the blockade on the string of rumors?
We're doing very well with the blockade.
It's very routine for us.
The Navy is incredible, and I think the blockade is doing very well.
No chip is even thinking about anything.
No chip is going past our navy.
President Trump at the White House talking to reporters, giving the latest on the U.S. conflict with Iran before leaving for Las Vegas.
The president has remained on the West Coast today, and we will hear from him again when he appears at Turning Point USA event with conservative young voters.
You'll hear from him around 5 p.m. Eastern Time.
Live coverage on C-SPAN, C-SPAN Now, our free video mobile app, and online on demand at c-span.org.
This morning, we're getting your thoughts on Congress rejecting Iran war powers resolutions.
Again, this week in the House and the Senate, multiple attempts by Democrats to peel off Republicans and get them to support an Iran war powers resolution, which would require the president to get congressional approval before he continues with combat operations.
These resolutions have failed every time.
From the Washington Post this morning, the War Powers Resolution of 1973, the law Democrats use to force the votes, requires presidents to remove U.S. forces from any conflict that Congress has not authorized within 60 days.
Trump can obtain a 30-day extension if he certifies to Congress that it is an, quote, unavoidable military necessity.
That 60-day deadline is coming up on May 1st, and we are in week eight of the conflict with Iran.
John in New Mexico, Republican, let's hear from you.
What's your message to Washington on these Iran war powers resolutions?
Stop the war.
Real simple, Greta.
It's an illegal war.
I mean, when you don't go to Congress to get anybody else's approval or anybody else's opinion, for that matter, it's a fascist move by a president that doesn't really care about anything except what he wants.
You know, he keeps talking about this, no tax on tips.
That's for one year only.
Hey, John, before we switch topics, you're a Republican.
Have you voted for President Trump in the past?
I did.
I did.
My dad was still alive when first time he ran, and that was probably the only time we were ever together on politics because Trump was going to get us jobs.
The big story was manufacturing's coming back.
Everybody's getting a job.
So you voted for him.
You voted for him in 2016.
Did you not do it again in 2020 and 2024?
20, no, I voted for him three times.
I got sucked into the big get or whatever you want to call it.
And I was lied to.
My health insurance went up, which, by the way, my governor of New Mexico covered the stop-in that Trump took away.
He gave us free health care.
Any woman that works, just show up.
Your child care is paid.
That's what you get when you let Democrats.
John, what was, before we let you go, what was the final straw for you that you decided that you did not support the president?
Beautiful bill.
I was mad for, still mad about the big beautiful bill, where he lied to us all on the campaign trail repeatedly at every stop.
Wasn't going to touch Medicare.
Took away everybody's health care in America unless you got about $3,000, $2,000 a month for your house.
I mean, no, who has that?
Okay.
Donna, I want to stick to the Iran war powers resolution, but John, a three-time supporter of President Trump, saying that he is opposed to the president on several issues, but laying out his arguments against this conflict with Iran.
Frank in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, an independent.
Good morning.
Share your thoughts with us.
Good morning, Greta.
This president has been off the rails since he started.
He doesn't respect our country, our people, our laws, or anything.
He's doing whatever he wants.
And that's not good.
He's mentally incompetent, and he has to go.
And I love C-SPAN.
I really do.
C-SPAN is my drug, and I get overdosed on it every single day.
Frank, are you watching these debates on the House Senate floor on the Iran war powers resolution?
Not at the moment because I'm busy working, but as soon as I get home, I'll be torn into C-SPAN all over again.
It's my job.
I get overdosed on C-SPAN every single day.
All right, Frank, well, we appreciate you watching.
And in case you missed it yesterday, let's go to the House debate on the Iran war powers resolution.
Here's California Democrat Sarah Jacobs, whose district includes military bases, defending the effort to limit the president's combat operations in Iran.
Two weeks ago, thousands of San Diego military families got 48-hour deployment notices.
That means they need to be ready to drop everything to deploy to the Middle East, get their affairs in order, pack, and say goodbye to their families for a few months or maybe a year.
And don't get me wrong, this is what our service members and their families signed up for, and they are not complaining.
But it is our job in Congress and my job as a representative of the country's biggest military community to make sure that we've explored all the contingency plans, exhausted all diplomatic and non-military options, and figured out the objectives, the strategy, and the exit plan before we've asked them to.
And we have done none of that.
And while I will push for oversight and transparency about how we got here, our focus now should be on how we end this war.
But instead, President Trump is escalating.
The San Diego-based carrier, the Lincoln, is already in the region.
San Diego's USS Boxer and the 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit will be arriving soon.
And we're expecting another San Diego-based carrier, the Roosevelt, to deploy any day now.
And when they get there, they will be prime target for retaliation and charged with the difficult task of enforcing Donald Trump's cockmame blockade of Iran's ports and partial blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, which will put a lot of strain on an already fragile ceasefire.
Donald Trump is getting our country further entrenched in another forever war in the Middle East.
And the longer we stay, the harder and more expensive it will be to get out.
So yes, we should support our troops.
That means doing our jobs and asking these questions before they are asked to sacrifice their lives.
That's why Congress needs to do our job, or else we will keep paying the costs in terms of lives lost and taxpayer dollars.
Sarah Jacobs, Congresswoman from California, a Democrat before that vote took place, it failed 213 to 214.
One Republican voted present.
One Republican voted with Democrats, Thomas Massey.
One Democrat voted with Republicans, Derek Golden.
It failed on the House floor.
From the New York Times reporting, they note that after the vote, Representative Brian Mast of Florida, the Republican chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, signaled that patience within his party was running thin and that a resolution to halt the military campaign could very well pass in the coming weeks.
The House could have a different vote count after 60 days, Mr. Mass said, alluding to a May 1st deadline that falls 60 days after Mr. Trump formally notified Congress last month of the military operation in Iran.
Asked if the vote would be closer then, Mr. Mass predicted that it would.
Had just one additional Republican switched positions and voted in favor of the resolution on Thursday, it would have advanced.
David Warren Warren Davidson of Ohio voted president, even though he had voted for a similar measure in the past.
Yesterday he voted present.
Nancy Mace, who has said she has grave concerns about this conflict with Iran, did not vote at all.
So one more Republican and it would have passed in the House.
Listen to Brian Mast, the head of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Republican of Florida, on the floor yesterday defending the conflict in Iran and President Trump.
Joe Biden engaged is because the Houthis, a direct arm of Iran, was attacking the United States of America ships, merchant marine vessels, doing what they've been doing for decades, picking a fight.
President Biden launched Operation Prosperity Garden against Iranian-backed Houthis, and that went on, not for 30 days, not for 60 days, not for 90 days, not for six months, went on for almost a year until January 2025, from November 23 till January of 25.
And what happened during that time?
How many times did my Democrat colleagues or Republicans offer a war powers resolution to say, remove all U.S. forces from this fight against Iran?
Imminent Threat Defense00:04:33
I have the counter down here.
It's zero.
It wasn't like what happened with President Trump.
President Trump defending against an imminent threat.
What was this imminent threat?
It wasn't just vessels being shot at.
It was very specifically not long before that, three Americans killed at a place called Tower 22.
Sergeant Rivers, 46 years old, serving in the U.S. Army Reserves.
Sergeant Sanders, 24 years old, serving in the U.S. Army Reserves.
Sergeant Moffat, 23 years old, serving in the U.S. Army Reserves.
Real imminent threat.
Our bases in Syria and Iraq and other places being attacked.
But before President Trump ever conducted any level of operation, Democrats introduced direct removal of U.S. forces from hostilities with Iran.
A war power introduced before anything ever happened.
Brian Mass, Republican of Florida, and the top Republican, the chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, defending the president.
But he's quoted in several of the national papers today saying, patience is running thin on the Republican side of the aisle.
Louie in Chicago, Illinois, Democratic caller, what's your message to these lawmakers?
Well, I wish I could say it's a good morning, but I'm very upset.
Just 15 days ago, President Trump said he doesn't believe the federal government can continue paying for Medicare and Medicaid because we're involved in wars.
You can see the quote in all the news media around the country.
This is a trick to get the federal government to stop paying for health care.
And I'm very upset about it.
And it has to be publicized.
All right, Louie calling in this morning with his thoughts.
Kellen Georgia, Republican.
Good morning to you.
Hi, how are you doing this morning?
Morning.
My congressional inquiry would be the root cause of Iran and the efforts to persuade or to interest a mark and reprisal in regards to engagement towards Iran.
What would be the significance?
What would be the imperative of such a strike?
And if such was the case, because it has been a long-pending Iran-U.S. conflict, one of all, and then just in general, Islamic beliefs and accepting of American soldiers.
However, the Islamic country does not, in fact, interest itself, it seems, of American business or American hostility and American domestic boundaries.
So how can, I mean, what would be the imperative of engagement with Iran as opposed to peace negotiations?
Well, the nuclear weapon threat.
Okay, reference strike.
True enough.
However, the claim approach that America was trying to launch at one time with the leading like nuclear fission reprisal, and this was in like the 60s and the 70s, and then the hunt for the big red October, the hunt for the big red nuclear reactor.
It kind of like there was an alliance that was made that says, hey, no nuclear reactor to be detonated whatsoever.
However, if Iran was to violate that nuclear rescue in a sense, it would be one in which I don't think Iran, Iran is a very, very, very, very peaceful country, despite the fact that Ayatollah and Tyran is looked upon as like a rule of world.
Blockade Impact on Economy00:02:56
Okay, so Kel, wrap up your point.
Okay, my point being is I do understand that the nuclear reactor is somewhat maybe an imperative for a marketing reprisal.
However, just a few years ago, there was a nuclear explosion in Iran that was just, I mean, it was just, I mean, left to being unquestioned.
Okay.
Kel, we got to leave it there.
So the president has announced that to put more pressure on Iran during this two-week ceasefire, they would implement a blockade in the Strait of Hermuz.
The New York Times this morning, what a blockade of Iran's ports means for its economy.
Reliable figures about Iran's trade and economy are hard to come by.
Reported data is often incomplete, and analysis inevitably involves guesswork.
Iranian reports said oil accounted for more than 40% of the country's total export revenue in 2023.
China is its principal customer, having bought 90% of Iran's oil exports in 2024.
And it says that the Chinese purchase equaled $31.3 billion in 2025 and accounted for 45% of Iran's government budget.
The story goes on to say that Iran's ruling mullahs have already demonstrated that they are not particularly responsive to hardships piled on the population.
Military spending by Iran was $7.9 billion in 2024, according to the World Bank.
But Iran has shown that it can effectively sabotage the global economy with expensive drones and underwater mines.
The U.S. blockade, in addition to halting oil exports, will end up also cutting off goods going into the country.
Years of sanctions have already crippled Iran's economy, resulting in severe unemployment, skyrocketing inflation and shortages.
A collapse in the currency sharpened the affordability crisis and resulted in widespread protests in December that were followed by a brutal government crackdown.
Nonetheless, in recent years, Iran managed to conduct trade with more than 170 nations.
This month, Iran's Customs Administration announced that the country's non-oil trade reached $109.6 billion over the previous 12 months.
Imports included smartphones, tractors, auto parts, rice, soybeans, sunflower seed oil.
Over time, the Iranian economy has also adapted to sanctions by producing more goods domestically, including automobiles, steel, iron, electronics, pharmaceuticals, and food.
That's the New York Times reporting on what this blockade means for Iran's economy.
Navy Blockade Operations Explained00:04:05
Listen to the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dan Kaine, speaking about how the U.S. Navy is carrying out this blockade of the Strait of Hormuz when he briefed the American people along with the Defense Secretary Pete Hegseph yesterday morning.
Let me walk you through this operation a little bit.
Please go to the first slide.
First, to the graphic.
This is taken before the blockade began.
North is up.
You can see the blockade line here in the center of the graphic, denoted by the red dashed line.
This map is a poll from our common operating picture that we use to allow commanders and key leaders to see what is happening in near real time.
We just grabbed screen grabs to highlight the actions and activities.
What is not shown is how incredibly congested this area is and the incredible work that our sailors are doing to ensure that they can work in and around an incredibly busy water space.
What is also not depicted here is the massive force of fighters, intelligence aircraft, helicopters, and other embarked forces to include aerial refueling tankers that are up overhead this blockade area.
You'll note that U.S. forces are in blue.
Iranian ships are in red.
And as we started this blockade, there were seven ships of interest that were of concern for U.S. Central Command.
Through a variety of intelligence tools and with the assistance of the Office of Naval Intelligence and other intelligence agencies, the force began to hunt for potential interdictors at 10 a.m. Eastern Standard Time.
Next slide, please.
It's now 1240 Eastern Daylight Time, two hours and 40 minutes into the blockade, as attempted blockade runners attempt to hop the line.
U.S. forces began to commit.
Out in front of them was a range of intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, and tactical assets.
And immediately, these runners began to see, sense, and feel America's combat power compressing upon them.
The lead ship, normally a destroyer as depicted here, along with air power off of the USS Abraham Lincoln strike group, began to move towards those ships.
At each point, the United States Navy will transmit a warning.
A young sailor, normally on the bridge of one of those destroyers, a junior officer, picks up that mic and transmits, and I quote, do not attempt to breach the blockade.
Vessels will be boarded for interdiction and seizure transiting to or from Iranian ports.
Turn around or prepare to be boarded.
If you do not comply with this blockade, we will use force.
And as this message is being transmitted, as I mentioned earlier, those shipmasters can literally see, sense, and feel the pressure around them.
It's a finely tuned machine rehearsed multiple times and executed now 13 times since the blockade has begun.
The Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair General Dan Kane talking about how the blockade by the United States in the Strait of Hormuz will work.
The New York Times this morning, as we shared with you a story about what it means for its economy, and they note that the International Energy Agency said on Tuesday, just as the U.S. blockade was beginning, that higher prices and diminished supplies were likely to persist.
Global Oil Demand Risks00:04:01
Global oil demand, one sign of global economic activity, is estimated to fall by 2.3 million barrels a day this month, enlisting China to pressure Iran, who is the biggest buyer of Iranian oil, 90%, could backfire.
On Monday, Beijing said that the U.S. blockade of Iranian oil was dangerous and irresponsible.
There is also the risk of a confrontation if a Chinese chip, ship, or tanker attempts to land at Iranian port.
Goes on to quote someone of the, an expert of a foundation that said there was no doubt that the U.S. blockade would make Iran poorer.
But he said, making Iran a poorer country does not necessarily make it a less dangerous country.
Let's get to your thoughts on Congress rejecting Iran war powers resolutions again this week in both the House and the Senate.
Jim is in Ohio on our line for Democrats.
Jim, we'll go to you.
Yes, good morning.
Good morning.
I'm 81 years old.
Good morning.
I'm 81 years old.
And in my lifetime, we've been in conflicts over 40 times.
And just to name the big ones, North Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, now Iran.
And all these have the same thing in common.
The Senate never declared any of them a war.
And none was a war.
Why are they pushing so hard for this now to go through Congress when none of them went to Congress?
Well, do you agree with not going to Congress?
Yes, I agree not going to Congress.
And why is that, Jim?
Do you think it's solely the Commander-in-Chief's decision?
Well, he knows more than we know.
And for all these years, they've been killing American citizens.
How many soldiers have they killed?
Iran.
Just set back and let it go and let it go.
Now, if that was your child being murdered over there, would you not want the United States to do something and stop it?
Okay.
I know it's Jim's arguments there.
In Ohio, Democratic Color, we showed you this headline earlier.
Jim is referencing it as well from Business Insider.
11 times U.S. presidents have launched military operations without congressional approval.
And the picture there is of then President Nixon talking about Vietnam to the American people with maps of Cambodia.
We'll go to Helen, who's in Long Island, New York, and Independent.
Helen, good morning to you.
What do you think?
Should the president have congressional authority for these combat operations against Iran?
Not this president.
Why is that?
I'm going to tell you something.
See, let's put it this way: a lot of things that are happening, how they're using God's name in vain.
And you have all your Republicans bowing down.
Everybody's bowing down to this man.
I just got to read a scripture.
Is that okay with you?
It's in Matthew 24, verse 23.
It's also in Mark 13, 21.
If anyone tells you you see here as a Messiah, it's over here.
Do not believe it.
For false Messiah and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders of led astray, if possible, even the elect.
Okay, America, we used to be blessed because we gave, and now we got a man that's taking.