Skip to content
You can now search across every topic, entity and event.What's new
European Oil Markets
31JUL

Murkowski misses her own AUMF deadline

3 min read
09:33UTC

Senator Lisa Murkowski's draft Iran AUMF, targeted by her own office for 28 April introduction, did not reach Congress.gov by close of business. Collins, Tillis and Curtis have publicly backed the concept; nobody has filed the bill.

EconomicDeveloping
Key takeaway

Murkowski's draft Iran AUMF missed her own filing target; the Senate now produces no instruments on the war.

Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska did not file her draft Iran authorisation for use of military force by close of business on Tuesday 28 April, the date her office had targeted last week for introduction . Congress.gov carried no Iran AUMF bill number under her name; the Quiver Quantitative Senate-filings tracker still listed S.4236, the American Seafood Competitiveness Act, as her most recent introduction 1. An AUMF is the congressional instrument under Article I that grants the President legal authority to wage a particular war; without one the War Powers Resolution of 1973 requires withdrawal sixty days from the start of hostilities.

Susan Collins of Maine and Thom Tillis of North Carolina endorsed Murkowski's draft on Saturday 25 April ; John Curtis of Utah added his name as the third Republican backer the same day . The Senate has just rejected the fifth attempt to invoke War Powers oversight on Iran by 51 to 46 on 22 April . The political conditions for filing existed; the bill text existed; the staff drafting was complete. The act of dropping the paper into the hopper did not happen.

A filed AUMF would force the first signed Iran instrument of the war under the most adversarial conditions available to the White House. Either the president signs the bill and accepts congressional terms on his Iran policy, or he vetoes it and triggers a veto-override fight, or he ignores it and provokes an Article I confrontation. None of those options is attractive on a war The Administration has chosen to manage without paper. By not filing, Murkowski has spared The White House the choice. The Friday legal expiry will pass the way the prior four floor votes passed: without a vote on authorisation, without paper, without consequence inside the Senate's own rules.

Four failed WPR motions read as active opposition to an authorising instrument. The new pattern reads as something different. Collins, Tillis and Curtis publicly support a bill nobody is willing to make them vote on. The legislative branch has stopped producing instruments of any kind on the Iran war.

Deep Analysis

In plain English

The US Congress has a law , the War Powers Resolution , that says the president needs congressional approval to keep fighting a war for more than 60 days. That deadline is this Friday. The senator working on a bill to give that approval missed her own deadline to file it. Four separate Senate votes have failed to stop or authorise the war. On Friday the legal clock runs out, with no bill filed on either side.

Deep Analysis
Root Causes

Murkowski's non-filing follows a documented pattern in the Senate's handling of this conflict: four floor votes that produced a public record without a legislative instrument.

An AUMF introduced by Murkowski would be referred to the Foreign Relations Committee, where Senator Jim Risch chairs; Risch has not backed the concept, so a filed bill would die in committee without a discharge petition, a tactic Murkowski has not signalled. That procedural wall makes the Collins-Tillis-Curtis backing irrelevant: co-sponsors cannot force a bill past a committee chair who has not moved it.

The Collins-Tillis-Curtis backing is real but insufficient: three senators co-sponsoring a bill that cannot clear committee serve the same function as the four prior WPR votes , a public record of opposition without a forcing instrument.

What could happen next?
  • Consequence

    Friday 1 May becomes the fifth consecutive legal deadline the executive and legislative branches pass without a signed Iran instrument, extending the precedent that the WPR clock has no enforcement mechanism in practice.

    Immediate · 0.88
  • Risk

    The May appropriations cycle offers the next structural lever: a continuing resolution or supplemental spending bill could attach an Iran-specific funding restriction, converting the political position into a financial constraint.

    Short term · 0.65
  • Precedent

    If the WPR clock expires without enforcement action for the sixth consecutive administration, the practical legal threshold for sustained presidential military action without AUMF shifts permanently upward.

    Long term · 0.75
First Reported In

Update #82 · Iran writes Phase 1; Washington still has no pen

White House· 28 Apr 2026
Read original
Causes and effects
This Event
Murkowski misses her own AUMF deadline
The Senate's most credible vehicle for asserting congressional war authority over Iran failed to reach a docket on its own target date. The legislative branch is now matching the executive branch's silent posture.
Different Perspectives
Sanctions compliance officer reviewing a Lukoil International GmbH bid
Sanctions compliance officer reviewing a Lukoil International GmbH bid
OFAC's amended FAQ 1224 gives a compliance desk its first published standard: full severance from Lukoil and a US-jurisdiction blocked account for sale proceeds. The conditions name neither ISAB nor Italy, so a Priolo Gargallo-linked bid answers a different question than a Neftochim Burgas or Petrotel Ploiesti one.
Managed-money funds on Brent Last Day
Managed-money funds on Brent Last Day
CFTC data for the week to 21 July showed managed money flipping 74,400 contracts to a net long of 15,665 against 1,410 short on the Brent Last Day contract, code 06765T. A fund that held that short through July has now covered it, and the spent short base raises the bar for the next leg higher.
Saudi crude exporters
Saudi crude exporters
Saudi-linked tanker transits through Bab el-Mandeb fell to about 7.5 a day after the 24 July underwriting withdrawal, pushing more barrels onto the longer route round the Cape or through the Yanbu terminal. Every diverted barrel ties up a ship for longer, and a fleet that turns slower charges more.
Tanker owners on the Bab el-Mandeb route
Tanker owners on the Bab el-Mandeb route
Lloyd's-market syndicates withdrew war-risk cover from Saudi-linked hulls on 24 July, leaving owners of that class of vessel to sail Bab el-Mandeb uninsured or not at all. Tanker transits on the route fell to roughly 7.5 a day, and cover, once withdrawn, does not return on a shipowner's timetable.
Eni
Eni
Eni's board approved second-quarter results on 29 July, swinging refining EBIT to a EUR0.08bn profit from a year-earlier loss even as group profit doubled, and named Red Sea freight cost as a cap on that improvement. A refiner absorbing higher shipping costs on Saudi-linked crude while its numbers improve treats the freight line as a drag, not a crisis.
Asian buyers (India, Japan, China, South Korea)
Asian buyers (India, Japan, China, South Korea)
Asian refiners are absorbing 62% of Yanbu's 3.75m b/d flow, the bulk of Saudi Arabia's rerouted crude now clearing east rather than into the Atlantic basin. That destination split leaves Asian buyers more exposed to any single Yanbu-specific disruption than under the kingdom's normal multi-terminal export pattern.