The resolutions, introduced by Senator Bernie Sanders, aimed to block the sale of bulldozers and bombs to Israel. Both measures failed, with votes of 40-59 and 36-63, drawing unanimous opposition from Republicans and a split among Democrats.

Sanders, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, has repeatedly forced votes on the issue in recent years to pressure lawmakers to reconsider U.S. military support for Israel. Similar efforts in 2024 and 2025 were also defeated, though support among Democrats has risen significantly.

“It’s clear that Democrats are beginning to listen to the average American who is sick and tired of spending billions of dollars to support Netanyahu’s horrific wars,” Sanders said after the vote.Senator Mark Kelly was among Democrats who voted in favor of the resolutions after opposing some previous efforts.

Speaking ahead of the vote, Kelly cited concerns over what he described as “reckless decisions” by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and U.S. President Donald Trump, including the expansion of conflict in Lebanon and continued violence in Palestinian territories.

Other Democrats, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, voted against the measures.The votes came amid protests in Washington, where nearly 100 demonstrators were arrested earlier in the week during actions urging lawmakers to support the resolutions.

The demonstrations were organized by advocacy groups critical of U.S. policy toward Israel.Earlier on Wednesday, the Senate also rejected a separate Democratic-backed resolution aimed at halting U.S. military involvement in Iran, which failed by a 47-52 vote.

Senator Chris Coons, who opposed the Israel-related resolutions but supported the Iran measure, said his votes reflected an effort to balance criticism of Israeli government actions with continued support for the U.S.-Israel relationship.

Republican lawmakers argued that blocking arms transfers could undermine U.S. strategic interests.

Senator Jim Risch, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said ahead of the vote that the measures could embolden Iran and weaken Israel’s security.

Recent remarks by U.S. President Donald Trump regarding Iran have prompted renewed discussion among some Democratic lawmakers about the potential use of the 25th Amendment to remove a sitting president from office.

The debate, however, reflects more of a political signal than a viable constitutional pathway, given the significant institutional and partisan barriers involved.The 25th Amendment, ratified in 1967 following the assassination of John F. Kennedy, was designed to clarify presidential succession and ensure continuity of executive authority.

It addressed longstanding gaps in the Constitution, particularly the absence of a clear mechanism for filling a vacancy in the vice presidency. Historical data from the Congressional Research Service indicates that between 1789 and 1967, the vice presidency remained vacant for a cumulative total exceeding 37 years due to deaths, resignations, or succession.

The amendment comprises multiple sections, but current political discussion has centered on Section 4, which outlines a process for involuntarily transferring presidential powers if the president is deemed unable to discharge the duties of the office. Under this provision, the vice president, together with a majority of the cabinet or another congressionally designated body, can declare the president unfit.

If the president contests the determination, Congress must convene within 48 hours, and a two-thirds majority in both chambers is required to uphold the decision.While Section 3 of the amendment has been used in limited circumstances, primarily involving temporary medical incapacitation, Section 4 has never been invoked.

In 2021, then-President Joe Biden temporarily transferred authority during a medical procedure, illustrating the amendment’s routine procedural application rather than its more controversial provisions.

Calls to consider Section 4 have surfaced previously, most notably after the January 6 United States Capitol attack, when some Democratic leaders urged then-Vice President Mike Pence to initiate the process. Among those advocating such action were Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer and then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Those efforts did not advance, reflecting both political constraints and the high constitutional threshold required.The current discussion emerges in a similarly constrained environment. Republicans maintain narrow majorities in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, making bipartisan cooperation essential for any attempt to proceed.

Analysts note that without substantial defections from within the president’s party, the two-thirds congressional requirement effectively renders the mechanism unattainable under present conditions.

Scott Anderson, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, characterized the prospect as politically unworkable, citing the improbability of sufficient Republican support.

Public opinion data further underscores this dynamic, with approximately 82 percent of Republican voters expressing approval of Trump’s presidency, reinforcing party cohesion at a critical juncture.The political risks for Democrats are also significant.

Previous efforts to remove Trump through impeachment during his first term failed to secure conviction in the Senate, despite passage in the House. Those experiences continue to inform strategic calculations within the party, particularly as lawmakers prepare for upcoming midterm elections in which control of Congress remains contested.

Some Democratic legislators have indicated a preference to prioritize policy initiatives over procedural challenges to the presidency. Representative Madeleine Dean of Pennsylvania stated that pursuing impeachment or similar measures at this stage may not represent the most effective use of legislative time, emphasizing instead issues such as economic policy, inflation, and childcare access.

Republican leaders have responded critically to the renewed focus on the amendment. House Speaker Mike Johnson described the discussion as politically motivated, arguing that it reflects a lack of substantive policy direction among Democratic lawmakers.

The exchange highlights the broader partisan divide that shapes both the feasibility and the framing of constitutional mechanisms in contemporary U.S. politics.

The renewed attention to the 25th Amendment illustrates its enduring relevance as a constitutional safeguard, while also underscoring the practical limitations of its most consequential provisions.

Although designed to address extraordinary circumstances, its application remains contingent on political consensus at the highest levels of government, a condition that appears absent in the current landscape.

The announcement followed earlier remarks by Trump threatening severe action against Iran, which drew strong criticism from several Democrats and prompted renewed calls for constitutional measures to assess presidential authority.

Democratic Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said the ceasefire “changes nothing,” accusing the president of continuing to leverage threats against the Iranian people and arguing that his actions had crossed the threshold for impeachment or invocation of the 25th Amendment, which allows for transfer of power if a president is unable to govern.

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham called for a measured approach, stating that Congress should undertake oversight to verify the facts. He said a formal review process similar to the Senate’s examination of the Obama-era Iran deal would be a “sound way forward.

”Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer criticized Trump’s earlier rhetoric, describing it as extreme, while acknowledging the ceasefire as a step back from escalation. He said the president appeared to be seeking an “exit ramp” following heightened tensions.

Republican Senator Kevin Cramer expressed support for Trump’s approach, praising what he described as “unwavering dedication” to national defense and framing the ceasefire within a broader “peace through strength” strategy.

Democratic Representative Yassamin Ansari said she was “momentarily relieved” by the ceasefire but reiterated concerns about Trump’s statements, calling for his removal from office through impeachment or constitutional provisions.

Republican Representative Zach Nunn welcomed the ceasefire, saying it reflected decisive presidential authority consistent with constitutional powers and the War Powers Resolution.

He added that attention should now turn to securing a lasting agreement to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

The reactions highlight deep partisan divisions in Washington over both the administration’s handling of Iran and broader questions surrounding executive authority in matters of national security.

The measure requires approval from the Federal Aviation Administration before taking effect, including updates to flight navigation systems and airport signage. Lawmakers have also proposed changing the airport’s three-letter code from PBI to DJT, reflecting Trump’s initials.

The move follows Florida’s approval last year of a plan to donate property in downtown Miami for a presidential library dedicated to Trump. Since relocating from New York in 2019, Trump has resided primarily at his Mar-a-Lago estate in West Palm Beach.In recent months, Trump’s name has been attached to a range of initiatives and institutions, including a planned class of U.S.

Navy warships, a visa program targeting wealthy foreign nationals, and a government-backed prescription drug website.Expansion across federal and cultural spacesIn December, the board of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts added Trump’s name following a restructuring that installed his allies.

The same month, the United States Institute of Peace building in Washington was also renamed after the administration assumed control of the organization.The US Treasury has said American paper currency will begin bearing Trump’s signature later this year, while a federal arts panel recently approved a commemorative gold coin featuring his likeness as part of events marking the country’s 250th anniversary.

The naming push has extended to infrastructure discussions. The White House confirmed in February that Trump had raised the possibility of linking federal funding for a Hudson River tunnel project to support from Senate Democrats, including Chuck Schumer, for renaming major transit hubs such as Washington Dulles International Airport and New York’s Penn Station.

No timeline has been provided for when the airport renaming will be completed, pending federal review procedures.

Trump announced the move in a social media post, citing a need to end what he called “chaos at the airports,” while lawmakers worked overnight to pass a measure that would fund most DHS operations but exclude immigration enforcement agencies central to the political dispute.

The Senate approved the funding deal unanimously without a roll call vote, sending the measure to the House of Representatives for consideration later on Friday.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune said the agreement would allow much of the government to reopen, though negotiations would continue on unresolved issues.

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer criticized the delay, saying the agreement could have been reached earlier and reiterating demands for reforms tied to immigration enforcement funding.

The White House had considered invoking emergency powers to pay TSA workers during the shutdown. Instead, Trump’s order will direct payments using funds from a 2025 tax law, according to a senior administration official.

The funding package covers agencies such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Coast Guard, but leaves out Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection, reflecting the core disagreement between Republicans and Democrats over immigration policy.

Travel disruptions mountThe prolonged funding lapse has led to significant operational strain at U.S. airports, with rising absenteeism among TSA staff who have missed paychecks.

Government data showed more than 11% of scheduled TSA workers were absent on Wednesday, with some airports reporting callout rates exceeding 40%.Nearly 500 of the agency’s roughly 50,000 transportation security officers have resigned during the shutdown, exacerbating delays and raising concerns about airport operations nationwide.

Union officials welcomed the move to pay TSA employees but urged Congress to pass a comprehensive funding agreement to stabilize DHS operations and ensure all federal workers are compensated.