Vidostream | News, sport and opinion from the Vidostream's US Edition

https://vidostream.com

Trump faces bipartisan pushback to Iran strike as some question his war powers

Some lawmakers argue Trump's strike against Iran was unconstitutional.

 

President Donald Trump's strike against Iran will be met with pushback on Capitol Hill this week as some lawmakers argue the military action was unconstitutional.

There are several bipartisan resolutions that could receive a vote in coming days that may put some lawmakers in uncomfortable positions as they consider whether Trump ignored the role of Congress in striking Tehran.

It's unlikely though, at this stage, that Trump's rank-and-file Republican base will broadly abandon him by supporting these bills. If any were to make it to Trump's desk, there likely wouldn't be enough votes to override his veto.

"I don't think this is an appropriate time for a war powers resolution, and I don't think it's necessary," House Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters Monday afternoon at the Capitol.

Fears of escalation ramped up on Monday as Iran retaliated against the U.S. with a missile attack on a U.S. military base in Qatar. The missiles were intercepted and there were no immediate reports of casualties at the base, according to U.S. officials.

Johnson said it's up to Trump whether the United States responds to Iran's attempt to retaliate on Monday.

"The president warned them not to retaliate, but he was also very clear that the threat of Iran obtaining nuclear capability is a threat not just to Israel and the Middle East, but to the United States as well. They've been very clear about their intentions and how much they hate us," Johnson said. "The president made an evaluation that the danger was imminent enough to take his authority as commander in chief."

People hold signs as they demonstrate in front of the White House in Washington, DC, on June 22, 2025 against US strikes on Iranian nuclear sites. Alex Wroblewski/AFP via Getty Images
People hold signs as they demonstrate in front of the White House in Washington, DC, on June 22, 2025 against US strikes on Iranian nuclear sites. Alex Wroblewski/AFP via Getty Images
 

 

Trump's decision to hit Iran in the stated aim of wiping out its nuclear capabilities follows a decades-long pattern of presidents taking military action and not waiting for Congress to sign off. Other examples include Joe Biden's airstrikes in Syria in 2021, Barack Obama's military campaign against ISIS in Syria and Iraq as well as George H.W. Bush's invasion of Panama.

House and Senate lawmakers are expected to receive briefings on the Iran strike on Tuesday.

Trump faces bipartisan blowback

Republican Rep. Thomas Massie and Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna introduced a War Powers Resolution last week to prohibit "United States Armed Forces from unauthorized hostilities in the Islamic Republic of Iran."

Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine is leading a similar Senate resolution, which could come up sometime this week as the chamber tries to move forward with a megabill to fund much of Trump's domestic policy agenda.

All three appeared on "Face the Nation" on CBS News on Sunday to make their case.

Massie contended there was "no imminent threat to the United States" that would authorize the president to strike Iran without congressional approval.

Kaine similarly said: "This is the U.S. jumping into a war of choice at Donald Trump's urging without any compelling national security interests for the United States to act in this way, particularly without a debate and vote in Congress. We should not be sending troops and risking troops' lives in an offensive war without a debate in Congress."

Kaine added that he hopes Republicans push back.

"I know many Republicans will fall in line and say a president can do whatever he wants. But I hope members of the Senate and the House will take their Article I responsibilities seriously," the Virginia Democrat said.

PHOTO: Rep. Thomas Massie | Sen. Tim Kaine
Rep. Thomas Massie leaves a House Republican caucus meeting at the U.S. Capitol on June 04, 2025 in Washington, DC. | Sen. Tim Kaine arrives for a hearing with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on the Pentagon budget and the crisis between Iran and Israel, at the Capitol in Washington, June 18, 2025. Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images | J. Scott Applewhite/AP
 

 

Khanna warned there is a possibility the strike is not a one-time occurrence.

"There are people who want regime change in Iran. And they are egging this president on to bomb. I hope cooler heads will prevail," Khanna said on CBS. "We need to pass Thomas Massie and my War Powers Resolution to make it clear that we're not going to get further entrenched into the Middle East."

Trump lashed out at Massie in a lengthy social media post on Sunday, writing the Republican congressman is "not MAGA" and that "MAGA doesn't want him" and "doesn't respect him." Trump said he'll campaign for Massie's Republican primary opponent in the next election.

Congress has twice before called out Trump on his use of military force without congressional approval.

In 2019, Congress approved a bill to end U.S. support for the war in Yemen, which Trump vetoed. In 2020, Trump ordered the drone strike that killed top Iranian general Qassem Soleimani. In response, Congress passed legislation seeking to limit a president's ability to wage war against Iran, which was again quickly rejected by Trump.

What is the 1973 War Powers Resolution?

The legislation introduced by Massie and Khanna seeking to limit Trump's ability to take U.S. military action against Iran cites the 1973 War Powers Resolution, which states that the president "in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances."

It also states that in the absence of a declaration of war but when armed forces are introduced, the president must report to Congress within 48 hours the circumstances necessitating their introduction and must terminate the use of U.S. armed forces within 60 days unless Congress permits otherwise. If approval is not granted and the president deems it an emergency, then an additional 30 days are granted for ending operations.

Trump admin says strike was legally justified

Top officials defended the military action over the weekend. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said the administration "complied with the notification requirements" of the War Powers Resolution, saying members of Congress were notified "after the planes were safely out."

Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio also sought to emphasize the U.S. is not at war with Iran.

Trump, though, warned that more strikes could come if Iran doesn't negotiate a deal.

"If peace does not come quickly, we will go after those other targets with precision, speed and skill," he said in his address to the nation on Saturday night.

Donald Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio (R) sit in the Situation Room as they monitor the mission that took out three Iranian nuclear enrichment sites, at the White House on June 21, 2025 in Washington, DC. Daniel Torok/The White House via Getty Images
 

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, a vocal supporter of military action against Iran leading up to Trump's decision, argued on NBC News that Trump has all the authority he needs under Article II of the Constitution.

"Congress can declare war or cut off funding," Graham said. "We can't be the commander in chief. You can't have 535 commanders-in-chief."

The administration could also cite an existing military authorization as grounds for legal justification for striking against Iran.

The 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) is a joint resolution passed by Congress that authorized counterterrorism operations by U.S. military forces against those responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Congress passed another AUMF targeting Iraq in 2002. Both have since been cited to authorize military force in more than 20 countries, including Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Somalia due to the broad language in the resolutions.

Critics have often said the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs grant the president powers to unilaterally wage "perpetual worldwide wars" and some lawmakers have been keen to repeal it -- but those efforts have all been unsuccessful.

ABC News' John Parkinson contributed to this report.

Author: Mariam Khan and Alexandra Hutzler

Source: ABC GMA

We are using cookies to give you the best experience on our website. By continuing to browse, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.
You did not use the site, Click here to remain logged. Timeout: 60 second