Will Congress tell Trump he needs permission to strike Iran?


Summary

The authority to declare war

There are bipartisan resolutions in both chambers of Congress that would require President Trump to get approval from Congress to strike Iran.

Those in favor

Those who support the resolution say Congress has the sole power to declare war and that President Trump should not get the US forces involved in someone else's war.

Those opposed

Those opposed to the resolution say they trust the president's judgment. They also believe Iran's nuclear facilities should be destroyed.


Full story

Members of Congress are looking to assert their authority to declare war under Article I of the Constitution with a new resolution that would require President Donald Trump to get Congressional approval before striking Iran. Bipartisan resolutions have been introduced in the House and Senate that would require the president to get authorization before going on offense against the Islamic Republic. 

Reps. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., and Ro Khanna, D-Calif., along with 14 of their Democratic colleagues, introduced the resolution to prohibit the military from “unauthorized hostilities” in Iran. 

“The Constitution does not permit the executive branch to unilaterally commit an act of war against a sovereign nation that hasn’t attacked the United States,” Massie said in a statement. “The ongoing war between Israel and Iran is not our war. Even if it were, Congress must decide such matters according to our Constitution.”

Sen. Tim Kaine introduced the companion resolution in his chamber. 

The resolution makes the following points: 

  • Congress has the sole power to declare war under Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution.
  • Congress has not yet declared war upon, nor enacted a specific statutory authorization for use of military force against Iran.
  • The question of whether United States forces should be engaged in hostilities against Iran should be answered following a full briefing to Congress and the American public of the issues at stake, a public debate in Congress, and a congressional vote as contemplated by the Constitution.

The resolutions are “privileged,” meaning they have to be brought up and debated within two weeks. 

There is also a carveout for defensive action taken in the event of an attack. 

While there is bipartisan concern that the president will strike Iran without Congressional approval, there are also members on both sides of the aisle who trust his judgment. 

“I think he has done a masterful job of threading a very, very difficult needle,” Sen. Foreign Relations Committee Chairman James Risch, R-Idaho, said. 

Risch said the Trump administration has briefed him on the situation “all day, every day.” 

“This is not our war. The decisions are being made by the Israelis and by their commander in chief,” Risch added. 

Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., said he would vote against Kaine’s resolution. In a closely divided chamber, just one Democrat voting no could be enough to sink it. 

“I think I might have been the first one to call –  bomb and destroy their nuclear facilities,” Fetterman said. “I wouldn’t want to support anything that might curtail [Trump’s] ability to move and destroy the nuclear facility for Iran.” 

Israel began what it described as preemptive strikes against Iran’s nuclear program last week as part of Operation Rising Lion. Israeli jets struck Iranian nuclear and military sites around the country. In response, Iran sent a barrage of missiles and drones at Israel, which hit both civilian and military infrastructure, including Israel’s equivalent of the Pentagon. 

Trump has said the U.S. will not get involved in the war, preferring to instead reach a deal with Iran involving the country’s nuclear enrichment. The U.S. has assisted Israel in defending against Iranian missile barrages. Iran has threatened any country that supports Israel in the conflict. 

Snorre Wik (Director of Photography/Non-linear editor) contributed to this report.
Tags: , , , , , ,

Why this story matters

Congressional efforts to limit presidential military actions against Iran highlight ongoing debates over constitutional authority, U.S. involvement in Middle Eastern conflicts, and the balance of war powers among government branches.

Congressional war powers

The resolution emphasizes Congress's constitutional authority to declare war, which is central to the current dispute over whether the president can authorize military action against Iran without legislative approval.

U.S. involvement in Middle East conflicts

The proposed legislation and varying opinions among lawmakers reflect broader debates about the extent of American military and political engagement in the escalating conflict between Israel and Iran.

Executive versus legislative authority

The differing stances among members of Congress illustrate the tension between the executive and legislative branches regarding who should make decisions about potential U.S. military interventions.