President Donald Trump's recent military strike against Iran has ignited significant pushback on Capitol Hill this week, as lawmakers question the constitutionality of the action. Several bipartisan resolutions are poised for a vote in the coming days, potentially placing some lawmakers in difficult positions regarding Trump's decision to bypass Congress in striking Tehran. However, it is anticipated that Trump's core Republican base will remain largely supportive, making it unlikely that any resolutions would garner enough votes to override a presidential veto.
House Speaker Mike Johnson expressed his views on the situation, stating, "I don't think this is an appropriate time for a war powers resolution, and I don't think it's necessary." His remarks came amid rising fears of escalation after Iran retaliated against the United States with a missile attack on a military base in Qatar. Fortunately, U.S. officials reported that the missiles were intercepted, and there were no immediate casualties. Johnson emphasized that it is ultimately up to President Trump to determine how the U.S. should respond to Iran's actions, reiterating the gravity of the threat posed by Iran's potential nuclear capabilities.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries raised skepticism regarding Trump's justification for the strike, stating, "We've seen no evidence to date that an offensive strike of this nature was justified under the War Powers Act or the Constitution." Jeffries asserted that no compelling evidence has been presented to indicate an imminent threat to the United States, further complicating the debate surrounding the military action.
Trump's decision to target Iran's nuclear capabilities reflects a long-standing trend of presidents taking military action without awaiting congressional consent. Historical precedents include Joe Biden's airstrikes in Syria in 2021, Barack Obama’s military campaign against ISIS, and George H.W. Bush’s invasion of Panama.
In response to the military action, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) introduced a War Powers Resolution aimed at prohibiting unauthorized hostilities against Iran. Additionally, Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) is leading a similar resolution in the Senate, which may be voted on as the chamber navigates a megabill to fund Trump's domestic policy agenda. During a recent appearance on CBS's Face the Nation, Massie and Kaine emphasized the need for congressional approval before engaging in military actions, arguing that the U.S. should not enter into an offensive war without proper debate and authorization.
Khanna cautioned that the strike could lead to further military involvement, warning, "There are people who want regime change in Iran. And they are egging this president on to bomb." He stressed the urgency of passing the War Powers Resolution to prevent deeper entrenchment in the Middle East.
In a lengthy social media post, Trump responded to Massie's criticisms, labeling him as not representative of the MAGA movement and announcing plans to support Massie's primary opponent in the next election. This is not the first time Congress has challenged Trump's military decisions; in 2019, lawmakers passed a bill to end U.S. support for the war in Yemen, which Trump vetoed, and in 2020, Congress sought to limit his ability to wage war against Iran following the drone strike that killed General Qassem Soleimani.
The legislation introduced by Massie and Khanna cites the 1973 War Powers Resolution, which mandates that the president consult with Congress prior to engaging U.S. Armed Forces in hostilities. The resolution requires the president to inform Congress within 48 hours of military action and to terminate such action within 60 days unless Congress grants approval. Critics argue that past AUMFs (Authorization for Use of Military Force) from 2001 and 2002 have been used to justify military actions without proper congressional oversight.
Top officials within the Trump administration defended the military strike, with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth asserting that the notification requirements of the War Powers Resolution were met. Other officials, including Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, emphasized that the U.S. is not officially at war with Iran. However, Trump hinted at the possibility of further strikes if Iran does not engage in negotiations, stating, "If peace does not come quickly, we will go after those other targets with precision, speed, and skill."
Senator Lindsey Graham, a strong advocate for military action, argued that Trump possesses the necessary authority under Article II of the Constitution to take such actions. He noted, "Congress can declare war or cut off funding," emphasizing the president’s role as the commander-in-chief. The ongoing debate over military actions against Iran raises critical questions about the balance of power between the executive branch and Congress, as lawmakers grapple with their responsibilities under the Constitution.
