Senate Blocks Measure 36 - 63... First Time In Decades!
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Republican-controlled U.S. Senate rejected two resolutions introduced by Vermont Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders that would have blocked the transfer of certain military equipment to Israel. The first resolution, aimed at preventing the sale of military bulldozers, failed 40-59. A second resolution seeking to halt the sale of 12,000 1,000-pound bombs failed 36-63. Seven Democrats joined Republicans in voting against the measures.
The votes came amid ongoing U.S. and Israeli military operations, including coordinated strikes against Iran and continued actions in Lebanon despite ceasefire claims. The resolutions reflected growing divisions within the Democratic caucus over U.S. support for Israel, with some senators expressing concerns about civilian casualties, regional escalation, and the scope of American involvement. Sanders described the level of Democratic support as a shift that “reflects where the American people are.” He argued that Americans want taxpayer dollars invested domestically rather than used in conflicts he described as “illegal, horrific and expansionist war policies” of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
A separate War Powers resolution to stop U.S. military participation in Iran failed 47-52, with lawmakers voting primarily along party lines. Sanders has introduced similar measures in the past. A November 2024 effort drew support from 18 senators, while a July 2025 resolution garnered 27 Democratic votes. Sen. Mark Kelly of Arizona voted in support of the resolutions after opposing some of Sanders’ earlier efforts. He cited actions by Netanyahu and President Donald Trump, stating, “The United States and Israel are fighting a war against Iran without a clear strategy or goal. I’ve been clear that I oppose this war in Iran and the reckless decisions being made by Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Trump.”
Republican Sen. Jim Risch of Idaho, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, opposed the measures, arguing they would “embolden” Iran. “It would send the message that the United States is prepared to leave our ally Israel vulnerable to further Iranian attacks and put the tens of thousands of Americans living there at risk,” he said on the Senate floor.
Sens. Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla of California supported the resolutions in a joint statement, noting that being a stalwart friend of Israel does not mean agreeing with all decisions of the Israeli government or Prime Minister Netanyahu, just as being a patriot of the United States does not require unquestioning agreement with the policy decisions of President Donald Trump and his administration. Both had previously opposed similar measures.
The votes underscore a wider shift among some Senate Democrats, as more have separated themselves from the party’s longstanding support for Israel. The developments occur as the United States and Israel have launched coordinated strikes against Iran, and Israel’s military campaign in Lebanon has continued despite claims of a ceasefire. These conflicts have fueled concerns among many Democrats about civilian casualties, regional escalation, and ongoing U.S. involvement.
May you like
The Senate’s rejection of the resolutions maintains current U.S. policy on military assistance to Israel. The outcome reflects ongoing partisan and intra-party debates over foreign aid, national security priorities, and the balance between supporting allies and addressing humanitarian considerations. As the 2026 midterms approach, these divisions could influence campaign strategies and voter perceptions in both parties. The Senate continues to navigate multiple high-stakes foreign policy matters, including the ongoing situation in Iran and broader Middle East dynamics.
Legal and policy experts note that such resolutions are often symbolic but can signal shifting congressional sentiment. The votes highlight the challenges of achieving consensus on U.S. foreign policy in a polarized environment. Further legislative efforts on related issues are expected in the coming months as lawmakers weigh security commitments, fiscal responsibility, and diplomatic considerations.
