Centrist Dems Buck Jeffries, Offer Trump 30-Day Clock To Wage Iran Conflict
Six House Democrats are going against House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) and introducing different legislation that would give President Donald Trump 30 days to deal with the situation in Iran before he has to ask Congress for permission to use military force.
Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) is putting forward a war powers resolution that would give Trump “30 days to make the case to Congress [and the] American people for military action in Iran or end the operation.” Trump has said that the operation in Iran is “ahead of schedule” and will probably last four to five weeks.
“Iran is actively firing drones and ballistic missiles at U.S. troops, our embassies, allies, and is targeting civilians across the region,” Gottheimer wrote on X. “This new Democratic War Powers Resolution will uphold Congress’s constitutional authority — while also ensuring the U.S. can defend our troops, embassies, and allies from Iranian aggression. We must protect our troops and allies.”
Democratic lawmakers who support Gottheimer’s resolution are Jimmy Panetta (D-CA), Jared Golden (D-ME), Henry Cuellar (D-TX), Jim Costa (D-CA), and Greg Landsman (D-OH) are all Democrats. The resolution is a break with Jeffries.
The leader of the minority party backs a broad war powers resolution led by Reps. Thomas Massie (R-KY) and Ro Khanna (D-CA). The two’s bill would force Trump to stop the U.S. military from fighting Iran unless Congress votes to allow it.
The Gottheimer resolution stipulates that Trump can’t send ground troops into Iran without congressional authorization, “except for search and rescue missions.” It requires the administration to brief Congress on the “goals, objectives, and timeline of major military action.”
The bill also includes a provision, according to Gottheimer, saying the United States maintains the “right to defend itself, our armed forces, embassies, and allies from Iranian attacks.”
It addresses what Republicans and even Democrats like Landsman saw as deficiencies in the version drafted by Massie and Khanna.
“I don’t support the resolution, which would require us to completely abandon our allies. It calls for the immediate removal of defensive weapons in the region,” Landsman told the Washington Examiner last week. “The Administration returned to the practice of notifying Congress of a strike with Rubio briefing the Gang of 8 last week. The strikes are an attempt to prevent further war, not to start one.”
Despite the concerns, Jeffries and Democratic leadership have pushed for a vote on the Massie-Khanna bill this week.
Jeffries said on Tuesday during a press conference that “there is going to be very strong Democratic support” for the Massie and Khanna measure. When asked by reporters, the minority leader said he hadn’t seen Gottheimer’s alternative proposal.
Jeffries recently came under fire for saying the U.S. strikes on Iran are “not going to end well” for the American people and that more Americans will come home in body bags, comments which did not sit well with many.
“Article 1 of the Constitution explicitly provides Congress with the authority to declare war, period, full stop. And the framers of the Constitution made that decision because they were concerned about kings throughout time getting their people into unnecessary wars, impoverishing them or imperiling their very well-being by sending them off to a foreign conflict. And that’s why the power was given explicitly to the House and to the Senate,” Jeffries said during an interview on CNN.
“And Donald Trump chose intentionally not to come before Congress, which is why we’re going to force this vote on a war powers resolution and make sure that we do everything we can to constrain him at this point in time,” the New York Democrat added.
Nearly 150,000 California Mail Ballots Rejected In Primary
California election officials are examining why nearly 150,000 mail-in ballots were rejected during the state’s June primary, with late-arriving ballots accounting for most of the increase.
The higher rejection rate comes despite years of election law changes designed to make voting more accessible and ensure more ballots are ultimately counted.
According to data compiled by the California Secretary of State’s office, 148,241 mail-in ballots were rejected during the June primary, representing 1.73% of all mail ballots returned.
That marks an increase from the 2024 primary, when 108,982 ballots were rejected, or 1.56% of all mail ballots cast.
The largest reason for rejection was ballots arriving too late to qualify under California law.
State data shows that 93,479 ballots were rejected because they failed to meet the state’s deadline requirements.
California allows mail ballots to arrive up to seven days after Election Day, provided they are postmarked on or before Election Day.
Voting experts believe many of the rejected ballots received postmarks dated after Election Day, making them ineligible to be counted even if they arrived within the seven-day grace period.
Kim Alexander, president of the nonpartisan California Voter Foundation, said the timing of postal processing appears to be a significant concern.
“Ballots rejected due to lateness are caused primarily to being postmarked too late to count, not because they arrived too late to count,” Alexander said.
Election experts have questioned whether recent operational changes within the U.S. Postal Service may be contributing to delayed postmarks.
Earlier this year, a group of mostly Democratic U.S. senators wrote to the Postal Service expressing concern that mail-processing changes could affect ballot handling during federal elections.
Updated Postal Service procedures mean postmarks may reflect when mail is processed at regional facilities rather than when it first enters the mail system.
Because processing centers have been consolidated in some areas, election officials have warned that postmark timing could be affected.
Before the June primary, California election officials encouraged voters to mail ballots as early as possible because of potential postal delays.
The June election also featured a highly competitive race for governor, which some experts believe encouraged many voters to wait until the final days before casting ballots.
In addition to late-arriving ballots, approximately 44,000 ballots were rejected because election officials determined the voter’s signature did not match the signature on file.
Another 8,300 ballots were rejected because the return envelope did not contain a signature.
State records also show that 743 ballots were rejected because those voters had already cast another ballot.
Other rejected ballots involved missing ballots inside return envelopes or multiple ballots submitted in a single envelope.
The highest rejection rate in the state occurred in Tulare County, where 3.52% of returned mail ballots were rejected.
Alpine County and Merced County followed closely, each recording rejection rates of 3.36%.
California has frequently faced criticism for taking weeks to complete vote counting after major elections, largely because state law permits ballots meeting certain requirements to continue arriving after Election Day.
Following the June primary, President Donald Trump again criticized California’s election system, while the Department of Justice opened an investigation into election administration in Los Angeles County.
Election experts emphasize that the increase in rejected ballots should not be interpreted as evidence of widespread voter fraud.
A 2025 report by the Brookings Institution found documented cases of mail ballot fraud remained extremely rare, estimating roughly four cases for every 10 million mail ballots cast, The Associated Press reported.
State officials have not identified evidence of widespread fraud connected to the June primary, but the increase in rejected ballots is expected to receive additional scrutiny as election administrators evaluate whether changes in postal operations, voter behavior or election procedures contributed to the higher rejection rate.
