A group of Democrats in the United States Senate are demanding public hearings on the country’s war against Iran after receiving a series of classified briefings from President Donald Trump’s administration officials.

Lawmakers say the White House has not clearly explained why the US entered the conflict, what its goals are or how long it might last.

Republicans currently hold a narrow, 53-47 Senate majority, giving them the power to control what legislation comes to the floor for debate.

Some Democrats have expressed frustration after the latest closed-door briefing.

Trump has not ruled out sending US ground forces to Iran.

“I just came from a two-hour classified briefing on the war,” Connecticut State Senator Chris Murphy said Tuesday. “The briefing confirmed to me that the strategy is completely inconsistent.

“I think it’s very simple: if the President did what the Constitution requires and came to Congress to ask for authorisation for this war, he would not get it — because the American people would demand that their members of Congress vote no,” he said.

Here’s what we know:

What happened till now?

Since the US and Israel launched strikes on Iran on February 28, senior officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, have held several closed-door meetings to brief members of Congress on the military operation and its progress.

Because the meetings are classified, lawmakers are prohibited from publicly disclosing the information they receive.

What are the Democrats saying?

Several Democratic senators said they left the briefing disappointed, arguing that the administration did not provide clear answers about war objectives, a timeline or a long-term strategy to guide their approach to the conflict.

Earlier this week, six Democratic senators also called for an investigation into the attack on a girls’ school in Minab, southern Iran. Reports indicate that the attack, which investigators say involved US forces, killed at least 170 people, the majority of whom were children.

Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal said, “It looks like there is no endgame.” “The president, in a contradictory manner, states that the war is almost over, while simultaneously asserting that it has just begun.” This presents a contradiction.

Senator Elizabeth Warren from Massachusetts expressed concern over the cost of the war.

“One part that seems clear is that while 15 million Americans have lost their health care, there’s no money for them, but there’s a billion dollars a day to spend on bombing Iran,” Warren said Tuesday.

“One thing Congress has the power to do is stop actions like this through the power of money,” he said.

Others seem concerned that there could be a ground-level deployment.

“It looks like we’re on track to deploy American troops on the ground in Iran to meet any potential objective here,” Blumenthal, of Connecticut, told reporters after Tuesday’s classified briefing.

He said, “The American people deserve to know more than what this administration has told us about the cost of war, the danger to our sons and daughters in uniform, and the potential for this war to escalate and widen.”

What are the Republicans saying?

Republicans, who hold slim majorities in both houses of Congress, have almost unanimously supported Trump’s campaign against Iran, with only a handful expressing scepticism about war.

Some Republican leaders say the strikes are necessary to curb Iran’s military capabilities, missile programme and regional influence.

They have also argued that the operation is limited in scope and designed to weaken Iran’s ability to threaten US forces and allies in the region.

Republican Representative Brian Mast of Florida, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, last week publicly thanked Trump for taking action against Iran and said the president is using his constitutional authority to defend the US against the “imminent threat” posed by Tehran.

But some Republican members of Congress have expressed concern.

Representative Nancy Mace of South Carolina said in a post on X that she “did not want to send the sons and daughters of South Carolina to war with Iran”.

Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky accused the Trump administration of changing its narrative and rationale for war on a daily basis.

“We keep hearing new reasons for war with Iran – none are solid,” he wrote on X.

Why does debate matter?

The controversy has revived a long-running debate in Washington, D.C., about the limits of presidential war powers.

Under the US Constitution, Congress has the authority to declare war, but modern presidents have often launched military operations without formal congressional approval, citing national security or emergency threats.

The law allows the President to deploy U.S. troops for up to 60 days without Congress’s permission, followed by a 30-day withdrawal period if Congress does not approve the action.

Some lawmakers and legal experts say the war on Iran highlights the need for stronger congressional oversight of military action.

“In the 1970s, we adopted something called the War Powers Resolution that gives the president a limited ability to do that,” said David Schultz, a professor in the department of political science and law at Hamline University.

“And so, you can either argue that what the president is doing violates the Constitution… No [being] formally declared war; or B, it exceeds his authority, either as Commander-in-Chief or under the War Powers Act,” he said.

“And so, you can argue that domestically, their actions are illegal and unconstitutional,” Schultz said.

The Trump administration has argued that the February 28 attacks were justified as a response to an “imminent threat”, an argument often used by presidents to justify military action without prior congressional approval.

However, US intelligence agencies themselves stated before the war began that they had no evidence of an imminent Iranian threat to the US or its facilities throughout the Middle East.