'Squad' members, GOP lawmaker join forces to reject US involvement in Israel-Iran war
Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., a conservative fiscal hawk who refused to sign onto President Donald Trump's "big, beautiful bill," is building an unlikely bipartisan coalition of lawmakers resisting the United States' involvement in the conflict between Israel and Iran.
"This is not our war. But if it were, Congress must decide such matters according to our Constitution," Massie said in a social media post announcing the War Powers Resolution that he introduced with Democrat Rep. Ro Khanna of California on Tuesday.
Massie, whom Trump threatened to primary during the House GOP megabill negotiations, invited "all members of Congress to cosponsor this resolution." By Tuesday night, the bipartisan bill had picked up 27 cosponsors, including progressive "Squad" members Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar.
Across the political aisle, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., signaled her support, writing that Americans want an affordable cost of living, safe communities and quality education "not going into another foreign war."
The bill's original co-sponsors also include progressive Democrat Reps. Pramila Jayapal, Summer Lee, Ayanna Pressley and Rashida Tlaib, who called it unconstitutional for "Trump to go to war without a vote in Congress."
The War Powers Resolution would "remove United States Armed Forces from unauthorized hostilities in the Islamic State of Iran" and direct Trump to "terminate" the deployment of American troops against Iran without an "authorized declaration of war or specific authorization for use of military forces against Iran."
Lawmakers who oppose the United States' joining the escalating conflict in the Middle East have sounded off on the unconstitutionality of Trump striking Iran without congressional approval. Congress has the sole power to declare war under Article I of the Constitution.
"The American people do not want to be dragged into another disastrous conflict in the Middle East. I'm proud to lead this bipartisan War Powers Resolution with Rep. Massie to reassert that any military action against Iran must be authorized by Congress," Khanna said.
The president told reporters on Wednesday morning that he is weighing whether to sign off on military strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities.
"Yes, I may do it. I may not do it. I mean, nobody knows what I'm going to do," Trump said.
Trump called for Iran's "UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!" on Truth Social on Tuesday, and said the United States won't strike Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei "at least not for now," but signaled America's "patience is wearing thin."
On the sixth consecutive night of strikes between Israel and Iran, Iran warned that the United States joining forces with Israel would mean an "all-out war," as Israel bombarded sites overnight it says would have allowed Iran to continue enriching uranium, as well as attack Israeli forces.
Israel launched preemptive strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities and military leaders last week, which the Islamic Republic considered a "declaration of war" and has since launched its own strikes against Israel.
Thousands of American troops are based in nearby countries within range of Iran's weapons, but Trump said on Wednesday that "we now have complete and total control of the skies over Iran."
The Jewish State targeted Iran's nuclear capabilities after months of failed negotiations in the region and heightened concern over Iran developing nuclear weapons.
But Ali Bahreini, Iran's ambassador to Geneva, said Iran "will continue to produce the enriched uranium as far as we need for peaceful purposes," as Israel continues to target Iran's nuclear capabilities.
The White House did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital's request for comment on the bill.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
24 minutes ago
- New York Times
Trump, Iran and the Specter of Iraq: ‘We Bought All the Happy Talk'
A little more than 22 years ago, Washington was on edge as a president stood on the precipice of ordering an invasion of Baghdad. The expectation was that it would be a quick, triumphant 'mission accomplished.' By the time the United States withdrew nearly nine years and more than 4,000 American deaths later, the Iraq war had become a historic lesson of miscalculation and unintended consequences. The specter of Iraq now hangs over a deeply divided, anxious Washington. President Trump, who campaigned against America's 'forever wars,' is pondering a swift deployment of American military might in Iran. This time there are not some 200,000 American troops massed in the Middle East, or antiwar demonstrations around the world. But the sense of dread and the unknown feels in many ways the same. 'So much of this is the same story told again,' said Vali R. Nasr, an Iranian American who is a professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. 'Once upon a time we didn't know better, and we bought all the happy talk about Iraq. But every single assumption proved wrong.' There are many similarities. The Bush administration and its allies saw the invasion of Iraq as a 'cakewalk' and promised that U.S. troops would be greeted as liberators. There were internal disputes over the intelligence that justified the war. A phalanx of neoconservatives pushed hard for the chance to get rid of Saddam Hussein, the longtime dictator of Iraq. And America held its breath waiting for President George W. Bush to announce a final decision. Today Trump allies argue that coming to the aid of Israel by dropping 30,000-pound 'bunker buster' bombs on Fordo, Iran's most fortified nuclear site, could be a one-off event that would transform the Middle East. There is a dispute over intelligence between Tulsi Gabbard, Mr. Trump's director of national intelligence, who said in March that Iran was not actively building a nuclear weapon, and Mr. Trump, who retorted on Tuesday that 'I don't care what she said.' Iran, he added, was in fact close to a nuclear weapon. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
New York Post
25 minutes ago
- New York Post
Keep the focus on stopping Iran's nukes — ‘regime change' is too risky a game
Regime change in Iran may wind up happening as a result of the current conflict, but it's absolutely to be avoided as a goal. In particular, don't let Israel's difficulties in completely destroying Tehran's nuclear program lead to mission creep or any moving of the goalposts — even though the central problem is the ayatollahs who'd have their fingers on the buttons. No civilized human of good will would shed a tear for the Islamic Republic, but Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya have shown the perils of ousting an entire regime without clear, practical ideas for what comes next — and that our ability to steer another country's course is extremely limited. Trying to impose the shah's heir, or any group of exiles, as a new government seems guaranteed to fail, as Washington doesn't know enough (or can't make effective use of what it does know) to pull off some miraculous coup. President Donald Trump certainly won't be sending in US ground troops, nor will any Western nation so intervene; it's hard to see even any of Iran's neighbors taking that risk (though some might aim to bite off some bits of territory). Yet keeping reasonable order in Iran has to be a priority for the rest of the world: It's not only a major oil and gas exporter in its own right, it's positioned to shut off the Strait of Hormuz, through which a fifth of the planet's energy now passes. Serious disorder in Iran, such as a civil war, risks destabilizing (among others) Iraq, Turkey and nuclear-armed Pakistan — none of which is completely stable now. Meanwhile, Moscow and (especially) Beijing would be looking to guard their own interests, and spread their influence — more bad news for the West. All of this argues for Washington doing what it can to prevent the conflict from creating a total power vacuum in Tehran. Get opinions and commentary from our columnists Subscribe to our daily Post Opinion newsletter! Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters Israel has every right and military need to keep knocking out the regime's missile capabilities, its top generals and so on; eviscerating the Republican Guard is beyond legit — but leaving Iran with enough civic skeleton for some new interim government to rapidly form seems a must. Oddly enough, this is an added argument for Washington joining Israel's campaign as far as dropping those bunker-busters on the Fordow nuke site: Taking out Tehran's nuclear program is the overriding goal here; getting the job finished fast may be the best way to limit the damage to the rest of the country. Yet it's also a reason for Iran's current rulers to give in and give up on their nuclear dreams: The risk they'll be ousted grows every day the bombing continues. Trump's instincts are solid so far: Iran can't go nuclear, but America won't get bogged down in another forever war; Israel's campaign needs to end successfully and rapidly. Regime change must be left to Iran's own people; trying to impose it from outside is a fool's game.
CBS News
30 minutes ago
- CBS News
President Trump's plan to "wean off" FEMA doesn't resonate with some N.J. residents still recovering from hurricanes
President Trump said recently he wants to move toward getting rid of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, better known as FEMA, and get states to take on responsibilities. But some disaster survivors in New Jersey and an organization that helps them are not in favor of the idea. "The FEMA thing hasn't been a very successful experiment" Mr. Trump said June 10 the plan is to "wean off of FEMA, and we want to bring it down to the state level, a little bit like education. We're moving it back to the states." The president said he wants that to start after hurricane season and for governors to lead the way. "Now, if they can't handle it, they shouldn't be governor. But these governors can handle it," Mr. Trump said. "The FEMA thing hasn't been a very successful experiment. [It's] very, very expensive and it doesn't get the job done." The president said once this all comes together, it will be good for the country. CBS News New York reached out to the local FEMA office, but it said it could not comment. We also tried to get comment from the national office, but have not heard back. Some N.J. residents sound off on Trump's FEMA stance Nearly four years after Hurricane Ida damaged her Milford home, Leanna Jones is still waiting for state help. "I still haven't gotten my money from the state to do the long-term recovery," Jones said. Jones said despite FEMA's imperfections, the agency was there for her right after disaster struck. "They did put $4,000 in my pocket right away, even before my insurance company came to do the first inspections," Jones said. That's why she says she's worried about what the president is saying about FEMA. "If everything is handed to the states, then people will be waiting for four years to get any money. That is just not okay," Jones said. Organizations helping Superstorm Sandy and Ida survivors also don't think it's a good idea. In recent recommendations to the FEMA Review Council, both the New Jersey Resource Project and New Jersey Organizing Project suggested more FEMA aid and less denial rates, adding, "None of our recommendations included dismantling FEMA. Rather, we have specific suggestions on how FEMA can be improved and provide continued benefit to impacted communities."
