Bipartisan revolt targets Trump's war powers after massive Iran strikes
President Donald Trump's joint strikes with Israel against Iran have intensified a growing bipartisan push in Congress to rein in his war powers, with lawmakers in both parties demanding votes on resolutions aimed at limiting his authority to use military force in the region.
Members in both chambers had already planned to force votes before the first bombs fell Saturday. Now, they are doubling down on calls to restrict the president’s military authority.
Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., has repeatedly forced votes to curb Trump’s war powers abroad — he was nearly successful in halting further military action in Venezuela until Republicans blocked the effort earlier this year.
FETTERMAN PRAISES OPERATION EPIC FURY: TRUMP IS 'WILLING TO DO WHAT'S RIGHT'
Kaine had already prepped his latest resolution, co-sponsored by Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., for a vote in the Senate next week. He argued Saturday that the strikes, carried out without congressional approval, further underscore why a vote should be held immediately.
"These strikes are a colossal mistake, and I pray they do not cost our sons and daughters in uniform and at embassies throughout the region their lives," Kaine said in a statement. "The Senate should immediately return to session and vote on my War Powers Resolution to block the use of U.S. forces in hostilities against Iran."
In the House, Reps. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., and Ro Khanna, D-Calif., are preparing their own war powers resolution for a vote.
KENNEDY WARNS AYATOLLAH WANTS TO 'DRINK OUR BLOOD OUT OF A BOOT' AS IRAN TENSIONS ESCALATE
Massie said in a post on X that he opposed "this war. This is not ‘America First.’"
"When Congress reconvenes, I will work with [Khanna] to force a congressional vote on war with Iran," Massie said. "The Constitution requires Congress to vote, and your representative needs to be on record as opposing or supporting this war."
The effort has the backing of House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., who earlier in the week noted that the resolution would require "the president to come to Congress to make the case for using military force against Iran."
The resolution’s fate in the House remains uncertain, given that a handful of House Democrats have broken with their party and backed the administration’s strikes in Iran.
Massie and Khanna’s push may also have the support of at least one more Republican in the lower chamber.
Rep. Warren Davidson, R-Ohio, appeared ready to back their war powers resolution following news of the strikes Saturday. He reiterated a position he made earlier in the week in a post on X.
"I have asked for a classified briefing defining the mission in Iran," Davidson said. "In the absence of new information, I will support the War Powers Resolution in the House next week."
"War requires congressional authorization," he continued. "There are actions short of war, but no case has been made."
Meanwhile, back in the Senate, the success of Kaine and Paul’s push will require Senate Republicans to cross the aisle.
They found a short-lived bipartisan coalition earlier this year, when their resolution targeting military action in Venezuela survived a key procedural vote. The group included Sens. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Todd Young, R-Ind.
Both Hawley and Young later flipped their positions after assurances from the administration that there would be no boots on the ground in Venezuela and that Trump would seek congressional approval for any future military action in the region.
Whether that same standard will apply to operations in Iran remained unclear Saturday. Murkowski and Young both said they hope to receive thorough briefings in the days ahead.
"Last summer, following Operation Midnight Hammer, I supported the administration’s targeted actions in Iran after receiving a comprehensive briefing from senior officials," Murkowski said on X. "Events are rapidly unfolding, and I expect Congress to receive the same level of engagement so we fully understand the scope, objectives and risks of any further military action."