On a Thursday in early March, both chambers of Congress set aside efforts to restrain the president's power over a war with Iran that had begun only days before, when the United States and Israel struck together. The vote leaves the legislature largely watching from the edge of decisions that belong, in practice, to one office. It is an old American tension playing out again: the Constitution assigns war to Congress, yet in moments of urgency the power to begin and direct it tends to gather at the executive, and the question of who will check it remains unanswered.
Congress Declines to Halt Iran War as Both Chambers Reject Curbs on Trump's Authority
Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was killed in the initial onslaught, and officials acknowledge fighting could last for some time, putting U.S. servicemembers at risk.
Congress is effectively a spectator to the president's war
Mark
Both chambers said no. What does that actually change?
Mimi
Mostly it confirms the status quo. The president keeps the decisions, and Congress, as the reporting puts it, is effectively a spectator.
Mark
Who broke ranks in the House?
Mimi
Two Republicans, Massie and Davidson, and four Democrats: Cuellar, Golden, Landsman and Vargas. The Democrats' defections helped Republicans defeat it.
Luke
Worth noting that the Democrats who defected sank a measure from their own side. The reporting doesn't tell us their reasons, so we shouldn't guess.
Mark
What's the administration's argument?
Mimi
That this is a targeted effort against Iran's missile program and military capabilities, not regime change. Then Trump said he'd help pick Iran's next leader.
Luke
That's the tension. Officials haven't said what victory looks like, and they say the fighting could last a while. We don't know the timeline or the endgame.
Mark
And the Democrats themselves are divided?
Mimi
Yes. Massie and Khanna want immediate withdrawal. Six centrist Democrats want a 30-day cutoff unless Congress authorizes the action.
Luke
Whether that second measure gets a vote or the numbers to pass is unknown. Right now it's just introduced.
O Pulso
- The House rejected an immediate-withdrawal measure from Massie and Khanna, and only a handful of members from both parties broke ranks to defeat it.
- Administration officials describe a targeted strike on missile capabilities, yet Trump's talk of choosing Iran's next leader has blurred the stated goal.
- Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was killed in the opening attacks, and officials warn the fighting could run on for some time, putting U.S. troops in harm's way.
- Democrats are divided between immediate withdrawal and a 30-day cutoff resolution, and the next vote will test whether any limit on the war can pass.
- Republican leaders insist that pulling back now would endanger servicemembers, leaving no clear endgame in sight.
On a Thursday in early March, both chambers of Congress set aside efforts to restrain the president's power over a war with Iran that had begun only days before, when the United States and Israel struck together. The vote leaves the legislature largely watching from the edge of decisions that belong, in practice, to one office. It is an old American tension playing out again: the Constitution assigns war to Congress, yet in moments of urgency the power to begin and direct it tends to gather at the executive, and the question of who will check it remains unanswered.
On Thursday, both the House and Senate voted down efforts to curb President Trump's authority over the war with Iran. The conflict had begun Saturday, when the United States struck Iran alongside Israel, and the result leaves lawmakers mostly on the sidelines of the decisions that follow.
The House measure, written by Republican Thomas Massie and Democrat Ro Khanna, would have forced an immediate U.S. withdrawal. It failed with help from four Democrats, and among Republicans only Massie and Ohio's Warren Davidson opposed the president. Davidson, an Army veteran, told the floor that America is a republic, not an empire, and argued that the real task ahead is restoring a government small enough to fit the Constitution.
Administration officials spent the week describing a targeted campaign to destroy Tehran's missile program, not an effort at regime change. Yet they have not explained what victory would look like, and the message grew murkier when Trump said he would take part in choosing Iran's next leader. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was killed in the opening attacks.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries pressed the central question: what are the objectives, and how will this end? Democrats themselves are split. A group of centrist House members introduced a rival resolution that would cut off operations within 30 days unless Congress authorizes them, a more measured path than immediate withdrawal.
Republican leaders, including Armed Services chairman Mike Rogers, have urged lawmakers to focus on supporting the troops rather than debating legality, warning that ending the operation early would put American lives at risk. What comes next is whether the 30-day measure fares better, and whether any limit on the war can gather enough votes to pass.
On Thursday, both chambers of Congress voted down efforts to rein in President Trump's authority over the war with Iran. The result leaves lawmakers largely on the sidelines of decisions the president makes about a conflict that began Saturday, when the U.S. struck Iran alongside Israel.
The House measure came from Reps. Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican, and Ro Khanna, a California Democrat. It would have required an immediate U.S. withdrawal from the conflict. It failed with help from members of the opposition party: four Democrats broke with their colleagues to kill it. They were Henry Cuellar of Texas, Jared Golden of Maine, Greg Landsman of Ohio and Juan Vargas of California.
On the Republican side, defections were few. Only Massie and Rep. Warren Davidson of Ohio opposed Trump. Massie, a cosponsor who has long questioned broad presidential war powers, was joined by Davidson, an Army veteran, who told the House floor that "America is a republic, not an empire." He said Trump's America First message was supposed to reject what he called the globalist war machine. War may well be necessary, Davidson said, but the more pressing task is restoring a government small enough to fit within the Constitution.
Administration officials spent the week making their case in hearings and classified briefings. They described the assault as a targeted campaign to destroy Tehran's missile program and other military capabilities, not an effort at wholesale regime change. But they have not explained what ultimate victory would look like, and they have said the fighting could go on for some time. That message grew muddier Thursday, when Trump vowed to take part in choosing Iran's next leader. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was killed in the opening attacks.
Supporters of the war powers push argued that Congress has been bypassed. They pointed to the administration's shifting rationale and the absence of a timeline or endgame. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries asked, "What are our objectives? How will this all end?" He added: "If this military action, this war, is so principled, why is the president unwilling or unable to make his case directly to the American people?"
Democrats were not unified, either. After the attacks began, some in the party voiced support for backing Israel and degrading Iran's military. On Tuesday, a half dozen centrist House Democrats introduced a competing war powers resolution. It would cut off operations within 30 days unless Congress authorizes the military action, a different approach from the immediate withdrawal that Massie and Khanna sought.
Top Republicans have so far played down the idea that the U.S. could be pulled into another protracted Middle East war. They have echoed the administration's argument that Iran's missile stockpiles threatened U.S. troops and allies. Rep. Mike Rogers, the Alabama Republican who chairs the House Armed Services Committee, said lawmakers should concentrate on "ensuring our warfighters have the resources and capabilities they need to succeed in this operation" rather than debating the war's legality.
"We should not pass any resolution that will end this critical operation before achieving these military objectives," Rogers said, warning that doing so would needlessly risk the lives of American servicemembers and allies.
What to watch next is whether the 30-day cutoff resolution fares any better than the immediate-withdrawal measure, and whether any limit on the war can win enough votes.
Citações Notáveis
What are our objectives? How will this all end?— House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries
America is a republic, not an empire.— Rep. Warren Davidson (R-Ohio)
Quer a matéria completa?
Leia o original em POLITICO ↗
War & Conflict