President Donald Trump did what few presidents would dare. On June 21, 2025, he ordered strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities: Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan. Just like that. The political firestorm that followed wasn’t just between Republicans and Democrats. It was within the Democratic Party itself. Two senators, both high-profile, took wildly different stances. One is the old-school institutionalist. The other? A surprise hardliner.

Trump made the announcement on his social media platform, Truth Social:

Let’s start with Chuck Schumer.

Position: Strongly opposed to Trump’s unilateral military action.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer was not happy. But then again, have you ever seen him with a smile that didn’t look like he was on the verge of having an evil orgasm?

VISIT OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Schumer made it very clear that he strongly opposed Trump’s unilateral military action. According to Schumer, there was no congressional authorization for the strikes, and he warned that this could set off a pattern of, as he sees it, unchecked presidential warmongering.

Schumer forgets the fact that both Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden have launched military strikes without obtaining new, specific approval from Congress, often leaning on broad existing authorizations or claiming defensive necessity. Between 2009 and 2017, President Obama approved 563 drone strikes across Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). In 2014, he also initiated airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq and Syria without seeking fresh Congressional authorization.

President Biden followed a similar pattern. In 2021, he ordered strikes in Syria, and in 2024, in Yemen, both framed as defensive actions and carried out without explicit consent from Congress.

Schumer wasn’t alone in the halls of Democratic leadership. The senator from New York joined top Democrat Trump haters demanding that the administration respect the War Powers Act. He wanted a full, formal vote in Congress before launching airstrikes. This hypocrisy reminds me of whenever Democrats lose a majority in Congress, they immediately ask for bipartisanship, but while they are in charge, any requests for bipartisanship receive the double-barreled middle finger.

And it didn’t stop there. Schumer, along with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, pushed for full transparency. They called for classified briefings. They insisted that the administration “justify the strike fully.” 

In other words, Schumer is the face of what you’d call the establishment position, but what I call the TDS Response.

Now let’s look at John Fetterman.

Position: Vocal support for the airstrike, making him the only Senate Democrat to openly back Trump’s military action.

The Democratic senator from Pennsylvania called the airstrike “the correct move,” described Iran as the “world’s leading sponsor of terrorism,” and gave a full-throated salute to the U.S. military for stepping up.

And this wasn’t just a one-off. Fetterman has been on record supporting strong-arm tactics before. He’s backed Israel’s right to defend itself and said he was in favor of eliminating nuclear threats, even supporting what he once called “bomber” rhetoric.

His position is starting to look a lot more like what you’d hear from someone like Lindsey Graham. It’s hawkish. It’s blunt. And it’s rooted in the belief that military strength keeps enemies in check.

What Does This Tell Us About the Democrats?

Let’s be honest—this isn’t just two guys disagreeing. This is a fault line in the Democratic Party. You’ve got the old guard like Schumer saying, “Let’s do this by the book when the president is a Republican.” They’re worried about letting the president off the leash.

Then you’ve got the pragmatists like Fetterman. These are Democrats who know their voters aren’t all in deep-blue cities. They’re also in swing states. They’re in red states as well. And those voters want someone who won’t blink when foreign enemies get too bold.

Fetterman’s message is basically: “You can still be a Democrat and believe in a strong America. You can even agree with Trump once in a while, especially if it means protecting the country.“

Meanwhile, Schumer wants to pump the brakes and remind everyone that the president isn’t a king, even if he does have to forget an entire history of past presidents doing the same thing.

So, Where Do They Go From Here?

This isn’t just a policy debate. It’s a fight over what kind of party the Democrats want to be. Are they the party of careful deliberation and procedural restraint? Or are they willing to muscle up, talk tough, and act fast when American lives are on the line?

Schumer is waving a red flag about presidential overreach. Fetterman is saying that when the world’s on fire, you don’t have time for a committee meeting.

When Democrats can’t even agree on how to handle national security, they have a full-blown identity crisis. Schumer is busy warning about government overreach, while no one believes he is sincere, and Fetterman is sounding the alarm on real-world threats. Both think they’re doing what’s right, but their split shows a party torn in the middle.

#schumer #iranstrike #fetterman