Republicans say they don't like the war but not how they'll stop it

Republican candidates Ashley Hinson in Iowa and Susan Collins in Maine are trying to separate themselves from the war’s costs. Both face politically difficult races as voters deal with higher prices. Their challenge is explaining how they would end the conflict, not simply saying they oppose it.

Hinson once supported the war but now says Iowans should not pay for it through higher pump and checkout prices. She has not voted for a resolution pressuring Trump to end it. Collins has voted for nine of 14 Senate efforts to constrain the president. She defended five opposing votes by citing the first 60 days of conflict.

Other Iowa Republicans Mariannette Miller-Meeks and Zach Nunn have supported war powers resolutions. Hinson says the president and military can end the war without another House resolution. Collins faces pressure from Troy Jackson, who says she could use her appropriations chairmanship to stop funding. Their positions show the tension between distancing themselves politically and using Congress’s available tools.

A war powers resolution is a congressional measure that seeks to control a president’s use of military force. It matters because the president commands the military, while Congress has constitutional powers connected to war, spending, and oversight. The resolution gives lawmakers a formal way to assert those powers.

Congress can use such a resolution to direct the president to end or limit military operations that lack congressional approval. Under the framework commonly associated with the War Powers Resolution, a president must report certain military actions to Congress, and military involvement faces a 60-day limit without authorization, subject to related procedures. The article describes these measures as limiting Trump’s ability to go to war without approval.

The votes do not automatically settle every conflict. They create political and legal pressure and can require lawmakers to take a clear position. In this case, Iowa representatives Mariannette Miller-Meeks and Zach Nunn supported resolutions, while Ashley Hinson argued that another House resolution was unnecessary.

Iowa’s gas prices jumped 69%, tying for the largest increase in the nation according to late-August AAA data. That figure makes the war’s economic fallout unusually visible in a state where fuel costs affect household budgets and political choices. It has become a major issue in a close 2026 Senate race.

The impact extends beyond gasoline. Iowa is among the country’s most farming-dependent states, and farmers rely on diesel to operate equipment and transport crops. They also face fertilizer costs, which have risen alongside other war-related expenses. Iowa state Representative Josh Turek blamed the conflict and Hinson’s continued support for higher gas, diesel, and fertilizer prices as harvest approached.

Those costs give Democrats a direct argument against Republican candidates linked to the war. Hinson says Iowans should not have to pay at the pump or checkout line. The price increases therefore connect foreign policy to daily life, farm economics, and the broader midterm political landscape.

Stopping funding would make it harder for the Defense Department to continue supporting the war. Congress controls appropriations, so lawmakers can use spending legislation to restrict, condition, or deny money for military activities. That makes funding one of the strongest congressional tools short of direct military command.

Some Democratic senators have said that, if they retake the Senate in November, they will block future funding for the Defense Department until the war is over. Their goal would be to force the administration to end the conflict by making continued operations financially difficult or impossible under congressional funding rules.

The article presents this as a future political strategy, not an action already taken. It also does not say that funding restrictions would immediately end every military activity. Their possible use matters because Democrats may control both chambers, while Republican candidates such as Hinson and Collins are being pressed on whether they would use similar tools.

Collins argued that the opening 60 days of a conflict give the commander-in-chief especially broad freedom to conduct military operations. Her explanation was designed to distinguish her early votes from her later support for congressional efforts to constrain the war.

She has voted for nine of 14 Senate efforts to limit Trump’s ability to continue the conflict. She defended the five votes against resolutions by saying they occurred during that initial period of presidential discretion. In her view, Congress should allow the president room to respond before imposing stronger limits.

The article presents this as Collins’s justification, rather than as a settled resolution of the political dispute. Troy Jackson still argued that she had not done enough as chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee. The disagreement shows how candidates are being judged both on individual votes and on the powers their positions give them to influence the war.

The chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee has influence because the committee handles legislation that provides money to federal departments. Military operations require funding, so decisions about Defense Department appropriations can affect whether the government can sustain them. This gives the chair leverage even without directly commanding troops.

Troy Jackson argued that Collins could use her position to stop funding for the war. His point was that she does not need only a symbolic resolution to influence the conflict. She could help write, advance, block, or condition spending legislation connected to the Defense Department, depending on the Senate’s broader political support.

The article does not say Collins has used that power to end the war. Instead, it says Jackson pressed her for failing to bring the conflict to a swift end. The dispute highlights why appropriations matters: Congress can pressure military policy through money, while the president and military conduct operations.

The Constitution divides war responsibility between the executive and legislative branches. The president serves as commander in chief and directs military operations. Congress has the power to declare war, authorize military action, oversee the executive, and control federal spending. The military carries out lawful orders through the president’s chain of command.

That division creates the conflict described in the article. Trump and the U.S. military can conduct operations, according to Hinson. Congress can respond through war powers resolutions or appropriations decisions that limit military action or funding. A war powers resolution is one way lawmakers assert that the president cannot continue a conflict indefinitely without congressional approval.

The article focuses on this dispute but does not provide a full constitutional explanation. It shows the practical tension: Republicans are distancing themselves from the war while debating whether Congress should act, and Democrats may use control of funding if they win the Senate. The balance depends on both legal authority and political votes.