After Iran Strikes, Congress Confronts Its Limited Power Over War
Shortly after President Donald Trump authorized military strikes on Iran that killed Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, members of Congress were left confronting a familiar reality: they had been informed of the operation but given no role in approving it, once again highlighting their limited authority over war under the Trump Administration.
[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]Read more: Trump Calls Khamenei’s Death ‘Justice for the People of Iran’
The White House said that the so-called Gang of Eight, the bipartisan group of top House and Senate leaders and intelligence committee chairs who are briefed on the nation’s most sensitive security matters, were notified by Secretary of State Marco Rubio shortly before the strikes began. Administration officials had also briefed congressional leadership and intelligence committee heads earlier in the week on escalating tensions with Iran. But those notifications fell short of formal authorization from Congress, which the Constitution assigns the power to declare war under Article 1.
Democrats were quick to argue that Trump had overstepped his constitutional authority and that Congress had been left largely in the dark on Iran’s threat. Sen. Andy Kim of New Jersey, who served as Iraq Director at the White House National Security Council during the Obama Administration, told TIME that lawmakers and the public were being asked to accept military escalation without understanding the endgame. “The President has really boxed us in and put us on the hook for things that we haven’t discussed as a country,” Kim said, warning that talk of regime change could empower hard-line factions within Iran and draw the United States into deeper commitments.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer added in a statement that the Trump Administration had not provided “critical details about the scope and immediacy of the threat,” urging Congress to reconvene quickly to reassert its constitutional role.
Many rank-and-file lawmakers from both parties echoed that message and told TIME this week that they had received little information about the Administration’s objectives or legal rationale before the strikes were carried out, reinforcing complaints that Congress was again being asked to respond to military action after the fact rather than debate it beforehand.
The strike that killed Khamenei has intensified those concerns, as lawmakers grapple with the risk of a widening regional conflict following Iran’s retaliatory attacks on U.S. bases in the Gulf.
The dynamic has become a recurring source of tension on Capitol Hill, where lawmakers have been frequently sidelined under the Trump Administration as major military decisions have been made by the White House alone, including last summer’s strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities and a January military operation in Venezuela that resulted in the capture of President Nicolás Maduro. Both operations were taken without advance congressional approval. In each case, lawmakers from both parties complained they had been inadequately informed and attempted to block the Trump Administration from taking further action without their approval, but those measures ultimately failed to pass.
Republican leaders and several hawkish lawmakers, however, rallied behind the President on Saturday. Senate Majority Leader John Thune commended Trump for confronting what he described as a persistent nuclear threat posed by Iran. Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina called the operation “necessary and long justified,” predicting it could hasten the collapse of Iran’s ruling regime. Democratic Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania also praised the strikes, saying that Trump “has been willing to do what’s right and necessary to produce real peace in the region.”
But Sen. Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska, said the debate continued over whether Operation Midnight Hammer, a series of U.S. military strikes on Iran’s nuclear program last summer, had truly dismantled its nuclear capabilities. “It’s a year later and we’re still trying to decide that,” she told TIME. “We certainly set them back, and that was good—that was the intention.” Sen. Ron Johnson, Republican of Wisconsin, added that he had not been informed of specific military plans, though he said he would welcome the Ayatollah’s removal from power.
Will Congress use the War Powers Act to curb further military action?
With the strikes already underway, the primary formal mechanism available to Congress to halt ongoing operations is the War Powers Act, a law designed to allow lawmakers to force votes on military engagements conducted without congressional authorization. While often discussed in advance of military action, the law also empowers Congress to act after hostilities have begun, requiring the President to seek approval for continued operations or to bring U.S. forces home.
That debate is now converging around a pair of war powers resolutions lawmakers were already preparing to consider before the strikes occurred. In the Senate, a bipartisan measure led by Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia and backed by Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky would require the president to obtain explicit congressional authorization before engaging in further hostilities against Iran. A parallel resolution in the House, sponsored by Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna of California seeks to compel the administration to halt unauthorized military action.
The Senate is expected to take up its resolution early in the week, while the House is scheduled to vote days later, though Democrats have pressed Speaker Mike Johnson to accelerate the timeline and reconvene lawmakers sooner. Several senators have also called for an all-member classified briefing and public hearings examining the administration’s legal justification and long-term strategy.
Even if both chambers approve the resolutions, their practical impact remains uncertain. If passed, the measure could compel the Trump Administration to obtain congressional authorization before sending additional troops or expanding the operation in Iran, even though the initial strikes cannot be undone. But the resolutions are widely expected to fall short of the two-thirds majority required to override an expected presidential veto, meaning they would function primarily as a political rebuke and a formal assertion of Congress’s constitutional authority rather than an immediate constraint on military operations.
“Every single senator needs to go on the record about this dangerous, unnecessary, and idiotic action,” Kaine said in a statement.