House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) staunchly supports former President Donald Trump’s hothead move a few days ago to bomb Iranian nuke sites. He argues that this move, whether you like it or not, is entirely constitutional. Johnson insisted in forceful terms that the strikes taken this past weekend would unequivocally justify such actions. He notes that Article II of our U.S. Constitution makes the president commander-in-chief of the armed forces.
The 1973 War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours. This notification is a constitutional requirement when deploying armed forces to situations that don’t require a formal declaration of war. Unless Congress formally approves military action, it should end after 60 days. Only Congress can authorize a new war or provide an extension to keep the war going. This framework has been at the center of lawmakers’ concerns about the legality of Trump’s recent activity.
Republican Rep. Thomas Massie has frequently joined forces with Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna, especially to introduce War Powers resolutions. Their aim is to stop US military action against Iran that has not been authorized by Congress. Last month, Massie stood alone in another high-profile vote, this one opposing a $300 billion military funding bill. Now, he is publicly stating that he won’t move his resolution if Iran–Israel hostilities don’t resume.
In a recent conversation, Johnson asked Massie what made his resolution helpful or relevant now that a ceasefire seems to have taken shape. “I believe that’s correct,” Johnson said when asked if the resolution could end up being a “moot point.”
Johnson enthusiastically supports Trump’s military actions. In violation of those treaties and international laws, some experts and constitutional scholars claim the War Powers Resolution violates the president’s Article II powers. Second, they claim that past administrations have taken military action without congressional authorization. Here’s why it means Congress and the courts probably won’t do anything meaningful to defend against Trump’s new strikes.
Trump’s first reaction was to lambast Rep. Massie on social media. He accused him of being a “Third Rate Congressman” and a “LOSER.” In response to this comment, discussions among legislators continued, revealing the implications this executive power and lack of accountability would have.
Senator Tim Kaine has introduced a companion measure in the Senate focused on stopping future conflict with Iran. His plan reflects the increasing fears of many House Democrats. Indeed, more than a dozen of them have even co-sponsored Massie’s resolution.
Johnson acknowledged the challenges ahead for congressional action given Trump’s announcements and the Ukraine war dominating today’s geopolitical environment. “We may not have to act,” he stated, adding, “I hope we don’t, because I think it would be a terrible look, and it will not pass the House because it’s inappropriate and it’s not a proper use of the law anyway.”
Discussions have started in both the House and Senate about requiring new military authority and preventing any escalation or new war with Iran. This debate reveals the persistent struggle between executive discretion and congressional oversight.