War Powers Act Explained as Thomas Massie, Ro Khanna Push House Resolution
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
A bipartisan group of House lawmakers, led by Republican Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Democratic Representative Ro Khanna of California introduced a War Powers Resolution Tuesday, just days before President Donald Trump authorized a military strike on three key nuclear facilities in Iran.
The War Powers Resolution of 1973 was enacted to limit the president's ability to commit U.S. armed forces to hostilities abroad without Congressional consent.
The current legislative push invokes the act's provisions and highlights persistent congressional frustration over what many see as executive overreach in the deployment of military force.
Khanna called for Congress to return to Washington, D.C., to vote on the measure, which he said Sunday had up to 50 co-sponsors across both parties.
Why It Matters
The House resolution spotlights a critical debate over constitutional war powers at a moment when U.S. involvement in Middle Eastern conflicts risks escalation.
Lawmakers are seeking to reinforce Congress's authority to declare war amid rising tensions between Iran and Israel and amid U.S. military actions that, according to critics, may exceed presidential powers.
The House initiative mirrors concurrent moves in the Senate, where Democratic Virginia Senator Tim Kaine and others have advanced parallel resolutions to restrict executive military action in Iran without legislative consent. This legislative surge reflects mounting concerns about the scope and legality of recent U.S. military activity abroad.
United States Capitol Building, Washington DC, October 27, 2024.
United States Capitol Building, Washington DC, October 27, 2024.
Getty
What To Know
Massie introduced the War Powers Resolution on Tuesday, emphasizing that the U.S. Constitution vests the power to declare war with Congress, not the President.
Massie invited participation from lawmakers across the aisle, underscoring bipartisan concern about unauthorized military actions, Newsweek previously reported.
Khanna quickly co-sponsored the measure and publicly called for Congress to reconvene and vote.
"Stopping Iran from having a nuclear bomb is a top priority, but dragging the U.S. into another Middle East war is not the solution," Khanna said in a press release.
"Trump's strikes are unconstitutional and put Americans, especially our troops, at risk," Khanna said. "Congress needs to come back to DC immediately to vote on Rep. Thomas Massie and my bipartisan War Powers Resolution to ensure there is no further conflict and escalation."
"Americans want diplomacy, not more costly wars. We need to deescalate and pursue a path of peace," Rep. Khanna concluded.
The resolution has garnered support from 50 House members, including Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, and Pramila Jayapal. The list remains heavily Democrat, though more Republicans may break with the party in the coming days as the aftermath of Trump's military strikes continue to play out.
What People Are Saying
Rep. Ro Khanna, Democrat of California, said in an official statement "Stopping Iran from having a nuclear bomb is a top priority, but dragging the U.S. into another Middle East war is not the solution. Trump's strikes are unconstitutional and put Americans, especially our troops, at risk. Congress needs to come back to DC immediately to vote on Rep. Thomas Massie and my bipartisan War Powers Resolution to ensure there is no further conflict and escalation. Americans want diplomacy, not more costly wars. We need to deescalate and pursue a path of peace."
President Donald Trump wrote in a Truth Social post, in part: "Congressman Thomas Massie of Kentucky is not MAGA, even though he likes to say he is. Actually, MAGA doesn't want him, doesn't know him, and doesn't respect him. He is a negative force who almost always Votes "NO," no matter how good something may be. He's a simple minded "grandstander" who thinks it's good politics for Iran to have the highest level Nuclear weapon, while at the same time yelling "DEATH TO AMERICA" at every chance they get."
What Happens Next
The House War Powers Resolution is scheduled for a mandatory floor vote within 15 days under the chamber's rules.
Parallel debates are ongoing in the Senate. As U.S. lawmakers weigh the resolution, the outcome may set new precedents for executive military authority and the balance of war powers between Congress and the White House.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Trump hits Iran: 5 questions on what comes next
President Trump's decision to authorize a military strike on Iran is a seismic moment that could reshape the future of the Middle East and his presidency. The administration on Sunday signaled it wants to contain the conflict, underscoring that it does not want an all-out war with Iran but will not accept a world where Tehran has a nuclear weapon. Whether it can contain the fallout is a different proposition and one that may depend largely on Iran. Politically, the vast majority of Republicans are sticking with Trump, while many Democrats are expressing outrage over what they see as a lack of strategy, as well as a lack of notification to Congress ahead of the strikes. The move by Trump is, in some ways, a surprise, as he came to office promising to keep the U.S. out of foreign conflicts. Now, less than six months into his second term, he is on the brink of a larger battle. Here are five big questions. This is the most important question. Administration officials on Sunday signaled that they are hopeful Iran will return to the negotiating table, but signs quickly emerged of a more aggressive response from Tehran. Iranian television reported that Iran's parliament had approved a measure to close the Strait of Hormuz, a key shipping route between Iran and Oman. State-run Press-TV said a final decision on doing so rested with Iran's Supreme National Security Council. Shutting off the waterway could have major implications for global trade, leading to increased oil and gas prices in the U.S. That would bite at Trump, who vowed to bring down prices after years of high inflation under former President Biden in the post-COVID era. It also risks turning the conflict into a broader war. Iran could also launch strikes against U.S. military targets, though its abilities to do so have been hampered by more than a week of strikes by Israel, which has allowed U.S. and Israeli planes more security to fly over Iranian skies. Another widely-discussed possibility is that Iran could back terror attacks around the world on U.S. targets. Of course, there would be serious risks to such actions by Iran. Just taking steps to move forward with its nuclear program, let alone striking out at the U.S., would lead to negative consequences, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned on Sunday. 'Look, at the end of the day, if Iran is committed to becoming a nuclear weapons power, I do think it puts the regime at risk,' he said during an appearance on Fox Sunday Futures. 'I really do. I think it would be the end of the regime if they tried to do that.' Before this week, Trump's Make America Great Again movement looked divided on a strike on Iran. Trump has long criticized past U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a big part of his draw to many voters was his promise to keep the U.S. out of foreign conflicts. MAGA voices from Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) to political pundit Tucker Carlson to former Trump strategic adviser Steve Bannon have all cast doubt on getting the U.S. more directly involved in the Iran-Israeli conflict. In the immediate aftermath of the strikes, Republicans were notably united, with Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) being a notable exception. And administration officials with non-interventionist records were taking rhetorical steps to keep the doubters in line. A chief example was Vice President Vance, who said the U.S. was at war with Iran's nuclear program, not Iran as a country. Iran may not see things that way, and if Tehran takes steps to hurt the U.S., GOP voices who doubted the wisdom of a strike may get louder. That will be something the administration watches closely going forward. Trump, in a Sunday Truth Social post, also touted 'great unity' among Republicans following the U.S. strikes and called on the party to focus on getting his tax and spending legislation to his desk. On the left, Democrats have hit Trump hard over the strike on Iran. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), speaking at a rally on Saturday night, reacted to unfolding events live, arguing Trump's action was unconstitutional as a crowd changed 'no more wars.' Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said Trump's action was an impeachable offense. That was a bold statement in that Democrats largely have avoided impeachment talk with Trump after twice voting to impeach him during his first term. Both of those efforts ultimately ended with Senate acquittals and, finally, with Trump's reelection last year. Presidents in both parties have taken limited military strikes without first seeking permission from Congress, but Democrats have also brought up the War Powers Act, saying Trump went too far with the strikes. At the same time, many Democrats are concerned about Iran's potential to go nuclear, and the party does not want to be cast as soft on Tehran. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), a vociferous opponent of Iran, called for his GOP counterpart, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.), to put the War Powers Act on the floor so senators could vote to authorize Trump's actions. Going a step further, Schumer said he would vote for it. 'No president should be allowed to unilaterally march this nation into something as consequential as war with erratic threats and no strategy,' Schumer said in the statement. 'Confronting Iran's ruthless campaign of terror, nuclear ambitions, and regional aggression demands strength, resolve, and strategic clarity. The danger of wider, longer, and more devastating war has now dramatically increased.' 'We must enforce the War Powers Act, and I'm urging Leader Thune to put it on the Senate floor immediately. I am voting for it and implore all Senators on both sides of the aisle to vote for it,' he said. Another Democrat further to the center, Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, retweeted Trump's Truth Social post on the attack and said he fully agreed with it. In general, the strikes on Iran may further divide Democrats on liberal-centrist and generational lines. Yet much, again, depends on events. A successful Gulf War by former President George H.W. Bush did not save his presidency in 1992. And the second Gulf War ended disastrously for the Republican Party led by Bush's son, former President George W. Bush. Trump justly had a reputation as a president who is averse to foreign conflicts, given his criticism of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and his repeated calls that he would keep the U.S. out of such wars. So how did this Trump end up bombing Iran, becoming the first president to authorize the dropping of some of America's most lethal non-nuclear bombs? It's more likely Trump's shift is a bit of a one-off based on current world events than a complete change in philosophy. After Israel's initial strike on Iran on June 13, the administration distanced itself from the decision. Trump previously has been seeking to get Iran to agree to a nuclear deal, and many reports suggested he was not keen on an aggressive Israel attack. But that attack happened, and it went well. Israel had control of Iranian airspace, potentially clearing the way for U.S. B-2 bombers. Action by Russia was unlikely given its own war with Ukraine — something that was not part of the political fabric in Trump's first term. Iran's backers in Hamas and Hezbollah also have been devastated by Israel since Hamas launched its attack on Oct. 7, 2023, an event that has had a number of serious repercussions. Some U.S. officials on Sunday called for peace, a sign that Trump is not seeking a prolonged conflict. That could also be a message to his supporters who did not think they were voting for a leader who risked getting the country into a Middle East War. At least some of those voters may be asking questions in the days and weeks to come, and what comes next will make a big difference in shaping their views. Trump's decision to attack Iran and enter the Israeli-Iran war is a big win for hawkish supporters and allies of the president, most notably Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). It is also, oddly, something that will be cheered by certain Republicans who are more often critics of Trump, such as former National Security Adviser John Bolton and former Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). It seems clear Trump is listening to the voices of Graham, Rubio and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, despite the sometimes-tense relationship between the U.S. and Israeli leaders. Vance is clearly a part of the president's inner circle, and it was notable that he, Rubio and Hegseth were at Trump's side when he announced the strikes on Saturday night. Trump 2.0 has been notable for having few voices that offer pushback to Trump's decisions. It is difficult to see Hegseth pressing Trump to move in a different direction on a national security issue, for example. And Trump twice this week described assessments by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard that Iran was not close to developing a nuclear weapon as wrong. So, who has Trump's ear? Most of these key people surround Trump and others, like White House chief of staff Susie Wiles. But Trump is his own decider-in-chief, and the Iran strikes are a reflection of his own unpredictability.
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Iran Lawmakers Eye Page From North Korea Nuclear Playbook After US Strikes
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A senior Iranian lawmaker has stated that fellow members of the Islamic Republic's parliament were considering a withdrawal from a multilateral treaty aimed at curbing the proliferation of nuclear weapons after a series of unprecedented U.S. strikes. To date, North Korea is the only nation to have acceded to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and subsequently withdraw. One other country, South Sudan, opted not to accede to the treaty after gaining independence from Sudan in 2011, joining India, Israel and Pakistan as the world's only non-NPT states. Pyongyang officially left the NPT in January 2003, just two months before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, citing concerns that the United States was planning a preemptive attack against North Korea, and went on to conduct the nation's first nuclear weapons test in 2006. Iran has always denied seeking nuclear weapons and has yet to signal any shift in its official doctrine. However, officials and lawmakers have increasingly questioned the nation's commitment to the NPT and other international obligations in the wake of a campaign of strikes launched by Israel last week and joined by the U.S. on Saturday. In what may be the most serious indication that such a move was being weighed, the semiofficial Tasnim News Agency cited Ebrahim Rezaei, spokesperson for the Iranian parliament's National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, as saying Sunday that "a review of the NPT treaty and Iran's non-membership in it were among the common demands" of lawmakers, which "are scheduled to be on the parliament's agenda." He also said that "most members of the committee strongly criticized the performance of the International Atomic Energy Agency and called for the cessation of cooperation or suspension of relations with this institution." Newsweek has reached out to the Iranian Mission to the United Nations and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for comment. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian addresses members of parliament in Tehran on March 2. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian addresses members of parliament in Tehran on March 2. ATTA KENARE/AFP/Getty Images Rezaei has previously urged for Iran's withdrawal from the NPT on several occasions amid the deepening Iran-Israel conflict that has rocked the region since the Palestinian Hamas movement's surprise attack against Israel on October 7, 2023. He has reiterated this call after Israel commenced a still-ongoing series of strikes targeting facilities and personnel tied to Iran's armed forces and nuclear program last Thursday. According to Article X of the NPT, which first came to effect in 1970, "each Party shall in exercising its national sovereignty have the right to withdraw from the Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of this Treaty, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country." In such a scenario, the country "shall give notice of such withdrawal to all other parties to the Treaty and to the United Nations Security Council three months in advance," including "a statement of the extraordinary events it regards as having jeopardized its supreme interests." Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei stated last Monday that Tehran would "take an appropriate decision" in relation to Iran's NPT membership amid the Israeli strikes and that a bill was being prepared in parliament. Still, he emphasized Iran's public commitment against developing nuclear weapons. Despite Iranian denials, Israeli officials have alleged that Iran had already obtained enough nuclear material to produce up to 15 nuclear weapons. The country has ramped up enrichment since President Donald Trump withdrew from a multilateral nuclear deal with Iran and major powers in 2018. As of March, U.S. Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabbard had assessed that Iran was not actively pursuing a nuclear weapon. Trump has since repeatedly characterized her assessment as "wrong" as he defended Israel's campaign, which came in the midst of U.S.-Iran nuclear talks, and prepared to order U.S. strikes against three key Iranian nuclear facilities in Isfahan, Fordow and Natanz. Despite the official ban, debate has intensified in Iran about the prospect of obtaining a nuclear weapon throughout the worsening conflict with Israel, with which Iran had twice traded direct strikes prior to the current battle. Iranian experts and former officials have previously told Newsweek such a move could not be ruled in the event that the Islamic Republic's leadership felt the survival of the state was under threat. Last week, Tehran-based security analyst Alireza Taghavania told Newsweek that the Israeli operations, backed by Trump, have "strengthened the position of those in Iran who wanted to build nuclear weapons," and that, "Now, most Iranians want to build nuclear weapons." In May 2024, the Iranian Mission to the U.N. told Newsweek that "in the event of an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, all of which are subject to monitoring and inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency, there exists a possibility of Iran reconsidering its collaboration within the Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement with the IAEA." The IAEA is the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog and is tasked with verifying the compliance of member states with the NPT. IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi had previously accused Iran of failing to uphold its non-proliferation agreements, though he has also warned that "attacks on nuclear sites in the Islamic Republic of Iran have caused a sharp degradation in nuclear safety and security in Iran." "A diplomatic solution is within reach if the necessary political will is there. Elements for an agreement have been discussed," Grossi told an emergency U.N. Security Council session on Friday, a day before the U.S. strikes in Iran. "The IAEA can guarantee, through a watertight inspections system, that nuclear weapons will not be developed in Iran. They can form the basis of a long-standing agreement that brings peace and avoids a nuclear crisis in the Middle East." "This opportunity should not be missed," he added. "The alternative would be a protracted conflict and a looming threat of nuclear proliferation that, while emanating from the Middle East, would effectively erode the NPT and the non-proliferation regime as a whole." The U.S. strikes have divided the world's eight other nuclear powers. China, Russia and Pakistan have condemned the strikes; the United Kingdom offered cautious support and joined France and India in calling for de-escalation and a return to diplomacy, while Israel has praised Trump's move. North Korea has yet to issue an official response to the U.S. raid but has repeatedly condemned Israel's operations in Iran as well as U.S. support for them. "The international community is strictly watching the U.S. and Western forces who fan up the flames of war by taking issue with the legitimate sovereign right and the exercise of the right to self-defence of Iran, the victim, far from condemning Israel for getting frantic with the territorial expansion, pushing the situation in the Middle East to an uncontrollable catastrophic phase," a North Korean Foreign Ministry spokesperson said in a statement published Thursday. The spokesperson added: "The Zionists who brought a new war to the Middle East and the behind-the-scene forces who zealously patronize and support them will be held totally responsible for destroying international peace and security." Meanwhile, Russian Security Council Deputy Chair Dmitry Medvedev said on Sunday that among the consequences of the U.S. attacks would be "the enrichment of nuclear material—and, now we can say it outright, the future production of nuclear weapons—will continue."
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Trump Trolls Iran With Post About 'Regime Change'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump asked on Sunday why there "wouldn't" be "regime change" in Iran if the country's government isn't able to "MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN." The U.S. president mused about the possibility on his social media website, Truth Social, writing: "It's not politically correct to use the term, 'Regime Change,' but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!" Trump's comments came after multiple top Trump administration officials said that regime change was not the U.S.'s goal in launching a series of strikes against three Iranian nuclear facilities this weekend. "This mission was not and has not been about regime change," Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth told reporters at the Pentagon on Sunday morning. Vice President JD Vance told NBC's Kristen Welker in a "Meet The Press" interview that the U.S. was not at war with Iran but rather with its nuclear program. This is a breaking news story. Updates to follow.
