On October 16, 2025, the U.S. Senate chamber was a flurry of activity, the kind that signals a government in the throes of both reflection and reckoning. Two major debates—one about the nation’s authority to wage war, the other about how to keep the lights on in Washington—converged, offering a rare window into the inner workings of Congress at a pivotal moment.
Late last week, the Senate adopted a bipartisan provision to repeal two congressional resolutions that had long authorized U.S. military action against Iraq. These resolutions, known as the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) Against Iraq of 1991 and 2002, provided the legal backbone for both the Persian Gulf War and the Iraq War. The new measure, called the Kaine Amendment after its sponsors Senators Tim Kaine (D-VA) and Todd Young (R-IN), was quietly passed by voice vote as part of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2026.
According to Politico, the House of Representatives had already passed its version of the repeal in September, with a striking coalition: 49 Republicans joined all 212 Democrats in support. With the Senate’s approval, the NDAA now heads to conference committee, where lawmakers will reconcile differences between the two chambers’ versions before sending a final bill to President Trump’s desk.
For Senators Kaine and Young, the significance of their amendment is clear. “The 1991 and 2002 AUMFs are no longer necessary, and leaving them on the books carries the risk of potential misuse. The House’s overwhelming support for repealing these AUMFs is a critical step forward in reasserting Congress’s role in decisions of war and peace, and keeping U.S. servicemembers safe,” the senators declared in a press release. Their message: Congress, not the president, should decide when America goes to war.
This is not just a technical shift. The War Powers Clause of the U.S. Constitution vests Congress with the power "to declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water." Yet for decades, presidents from both parties have cited these AUMFs to justify military actions—sometimes far removed from their original intent. President George H.W. Bush used the 1991 AUMF to impose a no-fly zone over southern Iraq. President Bill Clinton invoked it for missile strikes and expanded air operations in the 1990s. The 2002 AUMF became the legal basis for President George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq in 2003, and later for President Obama’s campaign against ISIS. Even as recently as 2020, President Trump cited the 2002 AUMF to justify the drone strike that killed Iranian commander Qasem Soleimani, a move that nearly sparked war with Iran.
What’s striking is how little resistance the repeal faced in 2025. Back in October 2002, nearly four-fifths of the Senate had voted to authorize the Iraq invasion, and public support for military action was sky-high. By February 2003, 66% of Americans—including a majority of Democrats—favored war. Today, the memory of the Iraq War is so painful that the Senate can quietly erase its legal underpinnings without much debate or protest. As Politico observes, the passage of the Kaine Amendment marks a rare moment when Congress has actually curtailed the president’s power to pursue military action.
But even as lawmakers moved to reclaim their war powers, they were locked in a separate, high-stakes battle over government funding. With the federal government partially shut down, Democrats faced a tough decision: should they advance a bipartisan appropriations bill to fund the Department of Defense for Fiscal Year 2026, or hold out for a broader deal that would protect their leverage in negotiations?
Republican Majority Leader John Thune made his move, hoping to tack on funding for the Departments of Labor and Health and Human Services alongside the Defense bill. Yet Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and other Democrats were wary. "We have to see what [Republicans] put on the floor," Schumer told reporters, according to Politico. For Democrats, the risk was clear: moving forward on a single appropriations bill could weaken their negotiating position in the larger shutdown standoff, especially as they pushed to extend expiring Affordable Care Act subsidies and prevent steep health insurance hikes for millions of Americans.
Senator Jeanne Shaheen, however, broke ranks. While she stopped short of saying how she would vote, she expressed support for moving forward with the appropriations process, shutdown or not. Still, as Senate Whip Dick Durbin put it, it would be a “long shot” for Democrats to muster enough votes to break a filibuster and advance the defense bill.
The procedural wrangling wasn’t limited to Congress. The federal courts, running on reserve funds since the shutdown began October 1, were expected to run out of money by October 18. Judges faced tough choices about which civil cases could proceed, and the looming cessation of paid operations threatened to throw the judiciary into chaos.
Meanwhile, Democrats were pushing for a reversal of the administration’s reductions-in-force—mass firings of federal workers during the shutdown. Representative Don Beyer, whose district borders Washington, D.C., told Politico, “It’d be pretty unconscionable to open it up and still have to put up with those thousands and thousands of firings.” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries echoed that sentiment, calling the layoffs an intimidation tactic and vowing they “will be reversed, either congressionally or by the courts.”
These demands added further complexity to the already-fraught negotiations, as Democrats also sought to ensure that their priorities—like health care subsidies—were respected in any broader appropriations deal. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse summed up the mood: “What’s needed is a larger agreement about how the appropriations process is going to move forward so it’s clear that our priorities are respected.”
All the while, the Senate prepared for a series of crucial votes. At 11 a.m., they were set to consider the House-passed government funding bill and the nomination of Harold Mooty as a district judge for northern Alabama. At 1:30 p.m., a procedural vote on the Defense appropriations bill loomed—another test of whether Congress could break the deadlock and get the government moving again.
For observers, it’s hard not to notice the historical irony. On the same day that Congress acted to reclaim its constitutional authority over war, it found itself mired in a shutdown that threatened the very machinery of government. The debates over military force and appropriations, though seemingly separate, both reflect a deeper struggle over who really calls the shots in Washington: the president or the people’s representatives.
As the dust settles, one thing is clear: the events of October 16, 2025, will reverberate well beyond the marble halls of Congress. Whether these moves signal a genuine shift in the balance of power or just a fleeting moment of congressional assertiveness remains to be seen. But for now, lawmakers have taken a step—however tentative—toward reasserting their role at the heart of American democracy.
