Congress Returns to Face Multiple Crises: Iran War, Government Shutdown, and Internal Scandals
A Perfect Storm of Political Challenges
As lawmakers make their way back to Capitol Hill after a two-week recess, they’re walking into what can only be described as a political powder keg. The break did nothing to calm the storm brewing in Washington—if anything, things have escalated dramatically. Members of Congress are returning to find themselves facing simultaneous crises that would each individually dominate the national conversation: an escalating military conflict with Iran that threatens to draw the United States deeper into war, a partial government shutdown affecting the Department of Homeland Security that has dragged on for weeks, and explosive personal scandals involving their own colleagues that could result in historic expulsion votes. It’s the kind of week that tests not just individual lawmakers but the very fabric of American democratic institutions.
The most immediate and serious concern involves the military situation with Iran. While Congress was away, President Trump dramatically escalated tensions, first issuing an ominous warning that “a whole civilization will die tonight” unless Iran agreed to end the conflict, then announcing a two-week ceasefire that many view as temporary at best. The situation deteriorated further when Vice President JD Vance’s weekend diplomatic efforts in Islamabad failed to produce any lasting agreement. Then came the president’s Sunday announcement that the U.S. Navy would impose a blockade on the Strait of Hormuz—one of the world’s most critical oil shipping chokepoints. This move alone represents a massive escalation that could have worldwide economic implications and potentially draw other nations into the conflict. Lawmakers now find themselves in the uncomfortable position of having to decide how much they’re willing to support a military engagement that many never authorized in the first place.
The Growing Divide Over War Powers and Presidential Authority
The constitutional tension between presidential power and congressional authority over war-making is about to come to a head in dramatic fashion. Democrats are united in their determination to force votes that would limit President Trump’s ability to continue military operations in Iran without explicit congressional approval. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries made the party’s position crystal clear last Thursday, declaring that “we need a permanent end to Donald Trump’s costly and reckless war of choice,” and emphasizing that House Democrats are “committed to bringing about that outcome.” What makes this particularly interesting is that Democrats aren’t just shouting into the void—they’re actively courting Republican allies, believing they only need to flip a handful of GOP votes to succeed.
The math is tantalizing for Democrats. In a previous vote last month on limiting the president’s Iran war powers, the measure failed by just 212 to 219, with only two Republicans breaking ranks to support it. That seven-vote margin suddenly looks surmountable, especially as a growing number of Republicans are expressing concerns about the war’s duration and scope. Many GOP lawmakers have indicated their support has limits, particularly as the conflict approaches the 60-day mark established by the 1973 War Powers Resolution—legislation passed in the aftermath of Vietnam to prevent presidents from waging indefinite wars without congressional authorization. The issue is likely to come to a head when the White House submits its expected supplemental funding request of between $80 billion and $100 billion—a staggering sum, though notably scaled back from the Pentagon’s initial $200 billion request.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has also promised to force another vote in the upper chamber, despite previous failures. His argument resonates with constitutional scholars and war-weary Americans alike: “Congress must reassert its authority, especially at this dangerous moment. No president, Democrat or Republican, should take this country to war alone. Not now, not ever.” The temporary ceasefire, Schumer argues, isn’t good enough—it’s “not a strategy, it’s not a diplomatic solution, it’s not a plan.” This bipartisan concern about executive overreach on matters of war and peace represents one of the rare areas where some Republicans and Democrats might find common ground, making the upcoming votes genuinely unpredictable.
The Homeland Security Shutdown Stalemate Continues
While international crises grab headlines, the dysfunction within the government itself continues unabated. The Department of Homeland Security has been shut down since February 14, caught in a political standoff that perfectly encapsulates the current state of congressional gridlock. In an unusual move that raises its own legal and constitutional questions, President Trump has directed that all DHS employees continue to be paid using “alternate funding sources”—essentially finding workarounds to keep people on the job even without proper appropriations.
The roots of this shutdown reveal the deep divisions over immigration policy that continue to paralyze Washington. The Senate unanimously passed a funding bill for DHS, but with a significant caveat—it excluded funds for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and portions of Customs and Border Protection (CBP), which Democrats oppose funding at requested levels given concerns about immigration enforcement practices. House Republicans rejected this approach and instead advanced their own temporary funding measure for the entire department. Speaker Mike Johnson initially called the Senate plan a “joke,” but then, under mounting pressure, he and Senate Majority Leader John Thune announced a compromise: accept the Senate’s funding approach while pursuing additional immigration enforcement money through the budget reconciliation process.
Even this compromise faces obstacles. Some House Republicans are threatening to vote against any funding until the reconciliation process is complete, essentially holding the department hostage to guarantee they get their way on immigration. Meanwhile, the conservative House Freedom Caucus has demanded that all DHS funding go through reconciliation—a process that would take much longer but would allow Republicans to bypass Democratic opposition in the Senate. Speaker Johnson also faces a deadline this week to reauthorize Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a key national security surveillance tool. It’s a juggling act that would challenge even the most skilled political operator, and Johnson’s slim majority means he can afford almost no defections.
Reconciliation as a Political Strategy and Its Limitations
Republicans see the budget reconciliation process as their ticket to advancing priorities that Democrats would otherwise block, particularly regarding immigration enforcement. Senate Majority Leader John Thune has indicated the Senate will move quickly on a reconciliation bill focused narrowly on ICE and CBP funding, facing a June 1 deadline to get it through both chambers. After meetings with influential GOP Senators John Barrasso and Lindsey Graham, President Trump posted on Truth Social that the process is “ON TRACK, and we are moving FAST and FOCUSED.”
The appeal of reconciliation for Republicans is obvious—it allows them to pass legislation in the Senate with just 51 votes rather than the 60 needed to overcome a filibuster, effectively cutting Democrats out of the process entirely. Republicans successfully used this approach last year to pass the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” a massive tax package that formed the centerpiece of Trump’s first-year legislative agenda. Now they’re hoping to replicate that success on immigration enforcement funding, and they haven’t ruled out using the reconciliation process again for other priorities.
However, the reconciliation process isn’t a magic wand. It comes with significant procedural hurdles that make it far more complicated than regular legislation. Both the House and Senate must first adopt identical budget resolutions—not always easy given the different political dynamics in each chamber. Then committees must draft legislation that reconciles spending with the new budget targets, and finally, all these recommendations get incorporated into a single legislative package. The process is time-consuming, and there are strict rules about what can and cannot be included in reconciliation bills (generally, provisions must have a direct budgetary impact). While Republicans control both chambers, their narrow margins mean that just a few dissenting voices in either the House or Senate could derail the entire effort, giving enormous leverage to individual members or small factions.
Personal Scandals Threaten Members with Expulsion
As if international conflicts and government shutdowns weren’t enough, Congress is bracing for what could be historic votes to expel sitting members over personal scandals—a rare and serious action that underscores how personal conduct issues are increasingly becoming matters of public accountability. GOP Representative Anna Paulina Luna of Florida has announced her intention to force a vote to expel Democratic Representative Eric Swalwell of California over sexual assault allegations. Swalwell faces multiple accusations, including from a former staffer who alleges he sexually assaulted her. The California congressman has denied all allegations, but the political pressure became so intense that he suspended his campaign for California governor late Sunday, even as he remains in Congress.
Democrats aren’t taking this lying down. They’re expected to counter with their own expulsion vote targeting Republican Representative Tony Gonzales of Texas, who admitted last month to having an affair with a staffer who subsequently died by suicide. Despite dropping his reelection bid, Gonzales has refused to resign from Congress, creating an awkward situation where he continues to serve despite having no political future. The tit-for-tat nature of these expulsion efforts reveals how accountability measures can quickly become weaponized in our polarized political environment, with each party using the other’s scandals to deflect from their own.
Additional expulsion votes are reportedly being considered for other members, including GOP Representative Cory Mills and Democratic Representative Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick, both from Florida. The bar for expulsion is deliberately high—it requires a two-thirds vote of the chamber, making it one of Congress’s most serious and rarely used powers. In the entire history of the House of Representatives, only six lawmakers have ever been expelled, with former Representative George Santos being the most recent in 2023. While these investigations and votes typically follow formal inquiries by the House Ethics Committee, such investigations aren’t technically required before bringing expulsion votes to the floor. If expulsions seem unlikely given the high threshold, lawmakers could pursue other accountability measures like censure, which requires only a simple majority and serves as an official condemnation without removing the member from office. Regardless of the outcomes, these votes will force members to go on record regarding their colleagues’ conduct, creating uncomfortable political dynamics that will reverberate through the 2026 midterm campaigns.
