Congress Moves to Curb ŤRUMP’s Iran War as Bipartisan Coalition Questions Legal Authority

WASHINGTON — A bipartisan group of lawmakers in Congress is moving to challenge President ŤRUMP’s military campaign against Iran, setting up a constitutional clash over the limits of presidential war powers and the role of Congress in authorizing armed conflict.

Senators Tim Kaine, Democrat of Virginia, and Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, are leading an effort in the Senate to pass a War Powers resolution that would require the administration to seek congressional authorization for continued military operations against Iran. In the House of Representatives, a similar effort is being championed by Representative Thomas Massie, Republican of Kentucky, and Representative Ro Khanna, Democrat of California.

The resolution invokes the War Powers Resolution of 1973, a law designed to restrain the president’s ability to engage U.S. forces in prolonged hostilities without congressional approval. If adopted, it would require the administration to end military operations against Iran unless Congress formally authorizes them.

The effort has drawn support from lawmakers across the political spectrum who argue that the Constitution gives Congress — not the president — the power to declare war.

“Congress must assert its authority,” Senator Kaine said in remarks supporting the resolution. “The American people deserve a debate and a vote before the United States becomes entangled in another prolonged conflict in the Middle East.”

The White House, however, has strongly defended the president’s actions.

Administration officials argue that the strikes were necessary to respond to what they describe as imminent threats posed by Iran’s missile capabilities and its support for militant groups targeting American personnel and allies. In a letter sent to congressional leaders on March 2, ŤRUMP said he had ordered the strikes as part of his constitutional responsibility to protect American interests.

“United States forces remain postured to take further action as necessary and appropriate to address further threats,” the letter stated.

Notably, the administration has avoided describing the campaign as a “war,” instead characterizing it as a limited military operation. The distinction has become a central point of controversy on Capitol Hill.

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, a Republican from Louisiana and a close ally of the president, defended the operation and warned that congressional interference could undermine national security.

“The president acted within his authority as commander in chief,” Johnson said in comments to reporters. “The idea that Congress would step in right now and prevent the completion of this mission would be dangerous.”

Supporters of the War Powers resolution reject that argument, saying the Constitution is explicit about the division of authority.

“War and peace decisions belong to the legislative branch,” said Representative Khanna. “This is about restoring the constitutional balance.”

The debate intensified following reports of casualties in the early days of the conflict. Several American service members have been confirmed killed, and Iranian officials have reported civilian deaths, including in a strike on a school that Iranian authorities say killed more than 100 people. U.S. Central Command has said it is reviewing reports of civilian harm.

The lack of clarity about the administration’s long-term objectives has also fueled concern among lawmakers.

After a classified briefing by senior administration officials, several senators said they remained uncertain about the strategic goals of the campaign.

Senator Chris Murphy, Democrat of Connecticut, warned that the United States could be entering a broader and more dangerous conflict.

“They told us there are likely to be more American casualties,” Murphy said after the briefing. “That alone should require a full debate and authorization from Congress.”

Senator Richard Blumenthal, also a Democrat of Connecticut, said the briefing raised new concerns about the possibility of deploying ground troops.

“I am more fearful than ever that this could lead to boots on the ground,” he said.

Even some Republicans have voiced skepticism about the administration’s legal justification.

Senator Paul has argued that military action without congressional approval risks violating both the Constitution and federal law.

“If we are at war, Congress must authorize it,” Paul said.

The War Powers resolution is expected to face a difficult path. While it may attract bipartisan support, ŤRUMP has already threatened to veto any measure that restricts his authority. Overriding a veto would require a two-thirds majority in both chambers of Congress, a threshold that supporters of the resolution are unlikely to reach.

Still, advocates say the vote itself is essential.

“This is one of the most serious responsibilities Congress has,” Senator Kaine said. “Whether members support the president or oppose him, the Constitution requires that we confront this question directly.”

The Senate is expected to vote first on the resolution, followed by a vote in the House. The outcome could shape not only the future of the current conflict but also the ongoing debate over the balance of war powers between Congress and the presidency.