Latest news with #WarPowersResolutions
The Hill
2 days ago
- Politics
- The Hill
Trump may go to war in Iran without Congress — and that's just the new normal
As President Trump weighs whether to attack Iran, the truth is, no one knows what he will do—and that uncertainty is exactly the point. But amid the chaos, one familiar question looms: What about Congress? The pattern is now well-worn. A president — Democrat or Republican — considers the use of force. A bipartisan group of lawmakers demands a vote. The White House sidesteps congressional approval. And a handful of Members introduce War Powers Resolutions that go nowhere. That cycle is already underway, with Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Representative Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) calling for Congress to reassert its constitutional role. As someone who served for years as a national security counsel to House leadership and the Foreign Affairs Committee, I believe that while Congress may still assert itself through symbolic War Powers Resolutions, it is highly unlikely to take another meaningful vote to authorize force — an unfortunate but predictable consequence of the Iraq War legacy. The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war but leaves much else unsaid, and potential ambiguity results from the tension between this and the president's authority to give military orders as commander in chief. In response to the Vietnam quagmire, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution of 1973, establishing procedures to check unilateral presidential military action. The law created three primary levers: formal Authorizations for Use of Military Force, a 60-day deadline for presidential withdrawal unless Congress acts, and privileged resolutions to force floor votes on military engagements. Every president since has sidestepped the War Powers Resolution's key enforcement mechanism — the 60-day clock — and Congress has largely acquiesced. Although lawmakers have passed resolutions demanding withdrawals — from U.S. involvement in Yemen (in 2019) and against Iran (in 2020), Congress hasn't authorized force in more than two decades. Why has the authorization for the use of military force become a political third rail? Start with electoral incentives. Since President Obama defeated Hillary Clinton in 2008 — in part by tying her to the 2002 vote to authorize force in Iraq — lawmakers have learned that war authorizations can become long-lasting political liabilities, especially when military outcomes are uncertain. The starkest example came in 2013. After dictator Bashar Assad used chemical weapons in Syria, Obama — under pressure from hawkish Republicans and Democrats demanding action — flipped the script. Rather than authorize strikes unilaterally, he asked Congress (cynically, in my view) to approve them. The political will predictably was absent. Public opposition was fierce. Calls to congressional offices ran 20 to 1 against intervention, and leadership declined to bring it to a vote. Today, party leaders remain reluctant to expose internal divisions. There is no unified view in either caucus on Iran. Some Republicans urge military support for Israel, including strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. Others — MAGA-aligned isolationists and progressive Democrats alike — warn of entanglement in a wider regional war. The result is strange-bedfellow coalitions and a leadership class intent on keeping these debates behind closed doors, not on the House or Senate floor. The deeper issue is structural. The presidency has evolved into a singular command center for U.S. foreign policy, especially since the New Deal era and the Supreme Court's recognition of the president as the nation's 'sole organ' in foreign affairs. The notion that 535 members of Congress should greenlight military operations seems increasingly anachronistic, particularly in moments of crisis, when speed and unity are at a premium. Rather than vote on a new AUMF, Congress will likely continue to resort to procedural War Powers Resolutions — privileged measures that force votes but do not bind the president. These resolutions create cross-party alliances and make political statements, but they are speed bumps on the road to war, not stop signs. Congress could attempt to cut off funding for military operations, but history suggests it will not. In both Kosovo (1999) and Libya (2011), Congress refused to authorize force but also declined to defund operations, effectively giving presidents free rein. Congress is not powerless. It retains the ability to shape public opinion, rally bipartisan concern, and pressure the executive when policies go off the rails. But observers hoping for a formal vote on Iran should temper expectations. The era of meaningful congressional authorizations of force may be behind us. And the war powers debate, for now, will remain one fought on procedural margins, not through constitutional muscle. Daniel Silverberg serves as a Managing Director at Capstone and a senior adjunct fellow at the Center for New American Security. From 2014-2021 he served as National Security Advisor to Rep. Steny Hoyer.
The Intercept
3 days ago
- Politics
- The Intercept
Congress Has One Way to Stop Trump From Going to War With Iran
As President Donald Trump draws the United States perilously close to war with Iran, some members of Congress are working across the aisle in an attempt to reign him in. On Tuesday, Representatives Thomas Massie, R-Ky., and Ro Khanna, D-Calif., introduced a War Powers Resolution, which would prohibit the 'United States Armed Forces from unauthorized hostilities in the Islamic Republic of Iran.' Senator Tim Caine, D-Va., introduced similar legislation in the Senate on Monday. 'U.S. involvement in Israel's war with Iran is a red line. We need Congress to speak out about that and pass a resolution prohibiting that,' Rep. Khanna told The Intercept. 'And we need the United States to try to bring this war between Israel and Iran to an end.' The War Powers Resolution, enacted in 1973, requires an act of Congress to declare a war. Over the decades, however, presidents have repeatedly ignored the federal law to deploy U.S. troops overseas without Congressional approval, ensnaring the U.S. in numerous foreign wars. Massie noted in his press release that War Powers Resolutions are privileged in the House and 'can be called up for debate and a floor vote after 15 calendar days without action in committee.' The resolution comes against a backdrop of escalating missile strikes between Israel and Iran over the last five days, beginning with Israel's attack on Iranian nuclear and military facilities ahead of scheduled negotiations between the U.S. and Iranian leadership. As attacks have continued, so too have concerns about direct U.S. involvement in the conflict. On Tuesday, Trump ratcheted up those fears with a string of Truth Social posts taunting the Iranian regime and calling for its surrender. 'We now have complete and total control of the skies over Iran,' he wrote. 'Iran had good sky trackers and other defensive equipment, and plenty of it, but it doesn't compare to American made, conceived, and manufactured 'stuff.' Nobody does it better than the good ol' USA.' In another post, he claimed to have the location of Iran's Supreme leader. 'We know exactly where the so-called 'Supreme Leader' is hiding. He is an easy target, but is safe there – We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now,' Trump wrote. And in a third post, he called for Iran's 'UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!' News reports emerged Tuesday afternoon that in a meeting in the White House situation room, Trump told officials he was considering joining Israel's strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. Even before Tuesday, lawmakers expressed concerns about the lack of clarity from the president and senior military leadership. Last week, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth refused to offer assurances to Rep. Khanna that the U.S. would stand up to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and not get dragged into the oncoming conflict. And on Monday, while leaving the Group of Seven summit in Alberta, Canada, Trump refused to answer a reporter's questions about whether the U.S. military would get involved in the war. 'I don't want to talk about that,' he told reporters. 'Even a cursory reading of the past 30 years of history in this country tells us that everything that is happening right now in this drive towards war is making all of us less safe.' Congresswoman Summer Lee D-Pa., told The Intercept that it is Congress's duty to intervene and prevent Trump from usurping their authority. 'Since taking office, Trump has continuously tried to supersede Congress and is now using the escalating crisis between Israel and Iran to justify executive overreach. Congressional authorization is not optional, and many are already opposed to being dragged into another endless war,' wrote Rep. Lee in a statement. Read our complete coverage The Pennsylvania representative also alluded to the United States' disastrous invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan as a reason for caution. 'The American people have been lied to before, and millions — at home and abroad — have paid the price. We cannot allow Trump or anybody else to use somebody else's war for political gain or financial profit,' said Lee. Members of Congress have previously tried to rein in the President's military efforts in the Middle East. Earlier this year, progressives sent a letter to the White House demanding that Trump explain his legal basis for strikes against Yemen. However, on Tuesday, Democratic Senator John Fetterman, also of Pennsylvania, struck a very different chord from Lee — encouraging military action against Iran and saying he would vote against Kaine's resolution. 'I'm going to vote it down… I really hope the president finally does bomb and destroy the Iranians,' Fetterman told Chad Pergram with Fox News. It marks a reversal for the Senator, who in 2022 criticized President Trump for walking away from the negotiating table with Iran. Samer Araabi, a member of the Center for Political Education's advisory committee and the Arab Resource and Organizing Center (AROC), said the comments from Fetterman aren't surprising. 'It's the least surprising thing from a Senator who has been so abhorrently blood chillingly deaf and blind to the situation in Palestine and totally unwilling on any level to recognize the countless war crimes that Israel continues to commit,' he said, adding, 'it would be laughable if it wasn't so horrifying.' Araabi warned that direct U.S. involvement in the war would be even worse than the invasion of Iraq, due in part to Iran's larger population and size. 'We're on the precipice of not even just another Iraq, but something that would potentially be significantly more destabilizing,' he said. U.S. military intervention on the side of Israel, Araabi said, would heighten the risk for all parties involved. 'Even a cursory reading of the past 30 years of history in this country tells us that everything that is happening right now in this drive towards war is making all of us less safe,' he said. 'It makes literally every single human being on Earth less safe. It certainly makes the Iranians less safe. It makes Israelis less safe, and it definitely makes us in the United States less safe.' Clare Bayard, a member of the Center for Political Education's Anti-War Working Group, echoed Araabi's fears about another Iraq War if the U.S. intervenes in Iran. 'We have to challenge this country's tendency towards amnesia and remember the lessons of Bush's war on Iraq,' Bayard wrote in a statement. 'The U.S.'s invasion and installation of a puppet regime, based on excuses that sound a lot like Israel's rationale for bombing Iran, resulted not only in mass death and displacement but in enduring new levels of violence for millions of people.' Nick Turse contributed reporting.
