Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) urged the U.S. Senate to limit President Donald Trump’s authority over the conflict with Iran during a floor speech [1, 2].
The move represents a significant legislative attempt to check executive power over foreign military engagements. By challenging the legality of the conflict, lawmakers are seeking to shift the balance of power back to Congress regarding war-making decisions.
Speaking on the Senate floor in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday, June 18, 2026, Gillibrand condemned the administration's approach to Iran [2]. She said the current state of the conflict is an illegal war [1, 2].
Gillibrand said the conflict has created dangerous new leverage for Iran [1]. She said the ongoing hostilities have led to increased gas prices and strained household budgets across the country [1, 2].
According to the senator, the conflict diverts billions of taxpayer dollars away from domestic priorities [1, 2]. This financial strain served as a primary justification for the push toward a War Powers Resolution, which aims to restrict the president's ability to engage in military action without congressional approval [2].
The resolution focuses on the necessity of legislative oversight to prevent unilateral executive action in the Middle East. Gillibrand's speech highlighted the intersection of national security and economic stability, specifically how foreign wars impact the daily costs for U.S. citizens [1].
The Senate subsequently adopted the resolution to limit the president's authority over the conflict [2].
“Gillibrand described the current state of the conflict as an illegal war.”
The adoption of this resolution signals a growing bipartisan or majority-led effort to reinstate the War Powers Act's intent. By linking foreign military action to domestic economic pressures like gas prices, legislators are framing executive war powers not just as a legal or diplomatic issue, but as a direct fiscal burden on the American public.
