The News
President Donald Trump’s military strikes on Iran cement the dominance of an increasingly audacious executive branch over Congress’ atrophying muscles on matters of war and peace.
After more than a decade of Capitol Hill delegating crucial authority to presidents in both parties on war powers, Trump’s move into Iran shows how little Congress is truly involved now in military decisions. Key Republican leaders signaled no qualms with strikes aimed at regime change earlier this week, a nod to Trump that the Republican Congress won’t try to stop Trump’s military campaign.
Nonetheless, House and Senate Democrats on Saturday urged their GOP colleagues to improbably call members back to Washington for votes after Trump announced the strikes on Iran, which were carried out with assistance from Israel.
Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., wants to bring the House back on Monday to take up his legislation with Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., who labeled the strikes “acts of war unauthorized by Congress.”
“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,” Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., said in a statement touting his own proposal. “Every single Senator needs to go on the record about this dangerous, unnecessary, and idiotic action.”
Both measures would require Trump to seek lawmakers’ approval for military action in the country.
Yet Congress has become increasingly comfortable deferring to the executive branch since lawmakers authorized the wars with Iraq and Afghanistan more than 20 years ago. Particularly when Congress is controlled by the president’s party, the White House has shown little deference to Congress, which is often on the backfoot anyway. The latest campaign against Iran is a replay of his fast actions in Venezuela earlier this year — and his first strike in Iran last year.
Even if Democrats’ war votes advance, they will come after Trump made his move. And it’s basically impossible to imagine the proposals would receive enough support to override a presidential veto.
There are still some libertarian-leaning outliers in the GOP, like Massie and Sens. Rand Paul, R-Ky., and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska. But the vast majority of GOP lawmakers — including House Majority Whip Tom Emmer, R-Minn., Senate Republican Conference Chair Tom Cotton, R-Ark., and House Intelligence Chair Rick Crawford, R-Ark. — rallied behind the strikes.
Republicans are clearly hoping the US engagement is limited. Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., said the decision “presumably was based upon a clear and present danger to the United States” plus “a planned execution that does not put the United States in a forever war.”
Administration officials notified House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune of the attack before it began, spokespeople told Semafor. They also gave a heads up to key congressional Democrats like Rep. Jim Himes, D-Conn., the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, and Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, people familiar with the talks said.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio briefed Congress’ so-called Gang of Eight on Iran earlier in the week; he also sought to give the same group advance notice of Saturday morning’s strikes, but only reached seven of them.
Warner said Saturday morning that “Congress must be fully briefed, and the administration must come forward with a clear legal justification.” Thune also later called for a briefing.
In this article:
Know More
Trump said in a video on social media early Saturday that the US military began “major combat operations in Iran” after the country ignored calls to abandon its nuclear program. Other countries quickly weighed in.
In subsequent social media posts, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said it would be a “joint operation” with Israel while the Israeli military said it is working to intercept “missiles launched from Iran toward Israel.” Iran warned it will “decisively respond” and called on the United Nations to “decisively condemn this act of aggression,” which it said “places the peace and security of the region and the world under an unprecedented threat.”
Saudi Arabia also said it would join the operation after Iran attacked a US base in Saudi Arabia. US allies like Australia and Canada expressed support, while others like France signaled concern.
Room for Disagreement
The House would need Republican noninterventionists like Ohio Rep. Warren Davidson to cross over for Massie and Khanna to have any hope of passing its resolution. Davidson said this week that he would support the proposal “in the absence of new information.”
“War requires Congressional authorization,” Davidson said Thursday. “There are actions short of war, but no case has been made.”
Republicans in the lower chamber can afford to lose just one member on any vote. In the Senate, four Republicans would have to join all Democrats on a majority vote — but Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., announced support for Trump’s strikes.
Eleanor and Burgess’ view
Congress has not shown a genuine bipartisan interest in authorizing military action beforehand since 2013, when the Senate tried to pass an authorization to strike Syria. We don’t expect that to change now.
And war powers votes will be viewed as more of a shirts-and-skins exercise than anything else. Trump hates when Republicans break from him on the issue, laboring behind the scenes and blasting Republicans publicly when they defected on Venezuela. In the end, he won over two GOP senators back to his side — and ultimately blocked the matter in the Senate.