Bipartisan Congress Coalition Moves to Restrict Trump's War Powers Against Iran Amid Israel Conflict
Lawmakers From Both Parties Unite to Prevent Military Action Without Congressional Approval
U.S. lawmakers from both parties introduced multiple war powers resolutions this week aimed at preventing President Donald Trump from authorizing military strikes against Iran without explicit congressional approval, as escalating hostilities between Israel and Iran raise fears of broader American involvement in the Middle East conflict. The coordinated legislative effort, led by Senators Bernie Sanders and Tim Kaine along with Representatives Thomas Massie and Ro Khanna, represents an unprecedented bipartisan challenge to executive war powers amid growing tensions in the region.
The resolutions emerged between June 16-17, 2025, following Israel's preemptive strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities and subsequent Iranian retaliation, with Trump publicly suggesting the United States might become involved in the conflict. These privileged measures will force prompt congressional debates and votes, putting lawmakers on record regarding military action that could cost "countless lives" and "trillions more dollars," according to Sanders.
Sanders Introduces "No War Against Iran Act" in Senate
Senator Bernie Sanders introduced the No War Against Iran Act on Monday, June 16, which would prohibit the use of federal funds for any military force against Iran without specific congressional authorization. The legislation includes an exception for self-defense as outlined in the War Powers Act and applicable U.S. law.
"Netanyahu's reckless and illegal attacks violate international law and risk igniting a regional war," Sanders stated in announcing the bill. "Congress must make it clear that the United States will not be dragged into Netanyahu's war of choice."
Key Legislative Details:
"Our Founding Fathers entrusted the power of war and peace exclusively to the people's elected representatives in Congress, and it is imperative that we make clear that the President has no authority to embark on another costly war without explicit authorization by Congress" - Bernie Sanders
The Sanders legislation has garnered support from eight Democratic senators, including Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, Jeff Merkley of Oregon, Ed Markey of Massachusetts, Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, Tina Smith of Minnesota, and Peter Welch of Vermont. Sanders previously introduced similar legislation in January 2020 with support from then-Senator Kamala Harris and Chuck Schumer.
Kaine's Senate War Powers Resolution Demands Congressional Approval
Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, a member of both the Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations Committees, introduced a companion war powers resolution on Monday that would terminate unauthorized use of U.S. armed forces against Iran. The resolution underscores that Congress holds sole constitutional authority to declare war and requires explicit authorization through either a declaration of war or specific authorization for use of military force.
"It is not in our national security interest to get into a war with Iran unless that war is absolutely necessary to defend the United States," Kaine explained in a statement. "I am deeply concerned that the recent escalation of hostilities between Israel and Iran could quickly pull the United States into another endless conflict."
Kaine's resolution is classified as "privileged," meaning the Senate must promptly consider and vote on the measure, likely within the current week. The Virginia Democrat successfully passed a similar resolution in 2020 during Trump's first term, though the president ultimately vetoed it.
Bipartisan House Resolution Challenges Executive Authority
Representatives Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican, and Ro Khanna, a California Democrat, introduced a bipartisan war powers resolution in the House on Tuesday, June 17, that would force Trump to seek congressional approval before entering any military conflict with Iran. The measure has attracted 15 original cosponsors, including progressive Democrats Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, and Rashida Tlaib.
"This is not our war," Massie posted on social media platform X. "But if it were, Congress must decide such matters according to our Constitution"
Khanna emphasized the constitutional imperative behind their effort, stating: "The Constitution does not permit the executive branch to unilaterally commit an act of war against a sovereign nation that hasn't attacked the United States." The California Democrat challenged colleagues to "go on record" on whether they support military action, asking: "Are you with the neocons who led us into Iraq or do you stand with the American people?
Constitutional Framework and War Powers Precedent
The current legislative push reflects longstanding tensions between the executive and legislative branches over war-making authority, as established in the Constitution. Article I grants Congress exclusive power to declare war, while presidents have increasingly asserted authority to initiate military actions under self-defense doctrines.
Trump faced criticism during his first term for ordering the 2020 drone strike that killed Iranian military leader Qassem Soleimani without congressional notification. Previous presidents have similarly stretched executive war powers, with Barack Obama justifying drone strikes in Yemen under Bush-era authorizations and Bill Clinton conducting military actions in Bosnia and Afghanistan without explicit congressional consent.
The 1973 War Powers Resolution requires presidents to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying armed forces and withdraw troops within 60 days unless Congress authorizes continued military action. However, presidents from both parties have challenged these restrictions, arguing they unconstitutionally limit executive authority.
Trump's Escalating Rhetoric Sparks Congressional Concern
President Trump's recent statements regarding potential U.S. involvement in the Israel-Iran conflict have intensified congressional concerns about unauthorized military action. During a June 18 interview, Trump indicated a decision on military strikes was imminent, stating: "I might proceed. I might hold back."
Trump left the G7 summit early to address the Middle East crisis and warned Tehran to evacuate, while simultaneously calling for Iran's "unconditional surrender" and telling Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei that "our patience is wearing thin." The president has deployed U.S. forces to the Middle East for ostensibly "defensive" purposes while publicly suggesting American involvement remains possible.
"We're not in it now. It's possible we could get involved," Trump told ABC News in a Sunday interview. These statements have prompted lawmakers to question whether the administration is preparing for military intervention beyond defensive support for Israel.
Public Opinion Data Shows Limited Support for Iran Military Action
Polling data reveals substantial public skepticism about military action against Iran, strengthening congressional arguments for requiring legislative approval. A University of Maryland poll conducted in May 2025, before Israel's recent strikes, found only 14% of Americans across party lines supported "military action in an attempt to destroy Iran's nuclear program."
Despite this public opposition, a more recent poll cited by The Algemeiner suggests "broad public support for both Israel's ongoing strikes against the Iranian regime and US military action that is deemed necessary to stop Tehran from developing nuclear weapons" The conflicting polling data highlights the complex and evolving nature of American public opinion on Middle East military engagement.
Polling Snapshot:
According to University of Maryland polling, only 14% of Americans supported military action against Iran's nuclear program before the current escalation
The disparity in polling results may reflect timing differences and question framing, with earlier surveys focusing on proactive strikes against Iran's nuclear program. At the same time, later polls addressed defensive support for Israel amid active conflict.
Israel-Iran Conflict Context and U.S. Strategic Implications
The current congressional action occurs against the backdrop of unprecedented direct military confrontation between Israel and Iran.
Israeli forces launched what officials described as preemptive strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities and military installations last Friday as part of "Operation Rising Lion." Iran responded with missile and drone attacks targeting both civilian and military infrastructure in Israel, including facilities equivalent to the Pentagon.
Israeli strikes have reportedly killed hundreds of Iranians, including nuclear scientists and military commanders, while Iranian retaliation has resulted in at least 24 Israeli deaths. The escalation represents the most direct Israel-Iran military engagement in decades and has raised concerns about broader regional conflict.
Sanders specifically criticized Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's decision to launch the attacks, arguing they were "specifically designed to sabotage American diplomatic efforts" by assassinating Iran's nuclear negotiating team leader despite scheduled U.S.-Iran talks. "Whatever you think of the corrupt and authoritarian Iranian regime, this attack clearly violates international law and the United Nations Charter," Sanders stated.
Republican Split on War Powers and Trump Authority
While the House resolution has attracted only Democratic cosponsors beyond Massie, some conservative Republicans have privately expressed concern about potential Middle East military entanglement. The "Make America Great Again" faction, which supported Trump's 2016 campaign promise to end foreign wars, faces tension between loyalty to the president and opposition to overseas military intervention.
Speaker Mike Johnson has historically managed to avoid forcing Republican votes on measures challenging Trump's authority and may pursue procedural routes to prevent floor votes on war powers resolutions. However, the privileged nature of these resolutions could complicate efforts to avoid congressional action.
Representative Massie represents a libertarian-leaning faction within the Republican Party that has consistently opposed foreign military interventions regardless of the president's party affiliation. His collaboration with progressive Democrats reflects unusual bipartisan unity on constitutional war powers issues.
Legislative Prospects and Procedural Challenges
The war powers resolutions face significant hurdles in the Republican-controlled House and Senate, where party loyalty typically prevents challenges to Trump's executive authority. Even if passed by both chambers, Trump would likely veto the measures, requiring two-thirds majorities in both houses to override presidential objections.
However, proponents argue the legislative process itself serves important constitutional and political purposes beyond immediate policy outcomes. "Even if it passes and Trump vetoes it, it still sends a de-escalatory signal and reminds the administration that only Congress possesses the power to declare war," Hassan El-Tayyab of the Friends Committee on National Legislation told Al Jazeera.
The 2020 precedent offers both encouragement and caution for current efforts. Kaine's similar resolution passed both chambers with some Republican support but ultimately failed to override Trump's veto. El-Tayyab suggested the 2020 effort nonetheless served to caution Trump against further military actions against Iran following the Soleimani assassination.
Progressive Coalition Building and Anti-War Activism
The current legislative effort reflects broader progressive coalition-building around anti-war principles and constitutional governance. Sanders' leadership connects his long-standing opposition to military interventions with younger progressive voices, such as Ocasio-Cortez and Omar, who have cosponsored the House resolution.
"The American people have no interest in sending servicemembers to fight another forever war in the Middle East," Kaine emphasized, echoing progressive messaging about "endless wars" that resonated in both the 2016 and 2020 presidential campaigns. This framing attempts to appeal to both anti-war progressives and isolationist conservatives skeptical of foreign military commitments.
The coalition faces criticism from some pro-Palestine advocates who argue Sanders has been insufficiently critical of Israeli actions in Gaza and Iran. Sanders faced backlash during his recent "Fighting Oligarchy Tour" with Ocasio-Cortez when pro-Palestine protesters were ejected from an Idaho rally after unfurling a "Free Palestine" flag.
Historical Precedent and Constitutional Debate
Congressional efforts to reclaim war powers authority reflect decades of tension between the legislative and executive branches over the authorization of military action. The Constitution's Framers deliberately granted Congress exclusive authority to declare war while making the president commander-in-chief of the armed forces, creating inherent tension over military deployment decisions.
The 1973 War Powers Resolution attempted to clarify these authorities following controversies over the escalation of the Vietnam War without congressional approval. However, every president since its passage has questioned the resolution's constitutionality, arguing it infringes on executive commander-in-chief powers.
Recent conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and Yemen have all involved varying degrees of congressional authorization disputes. The current Iranian situation presents a particularly acute test case, given the potential for rapid escalation into a broader regional conflict.
International Law and Diplomatic Implications
The congressional resolutions also address broader questions about international law compliance and diplomatic coordination with allies. Sanders specifically cited violations of "international law and the United Nations Charter" in criticizing Israeli actions that could draw the United States into conflict.
The timing of potential U.S. military action could significantly impact diplomatic efforts to contain the Israel-Iran conflict. Sanders noted that Israeli strikes killed Iran's nuclear negotiating team leader despite scheduled talks with the United States, suggesting coordination between military and diplomatic strategies.
NATO allies and other international partners have expressed concern about the rapid escalation in the Middle East and the potential for broader conflict that could affect global economic and security interests. Congressional authorization requirements could provide additional diplomatic space for de-escalation efforts.
Economic and Budgetary Considerations
Sanders' "No War Against Iran Act" explicitly addresses the fiscal implications of potential military action by prohibiting federal funds from being used without congressional approval. The senator has repeatedly emphasized the economic costs of Middle East conflicts, arguing another war "could cost countless lives, waste trillions more dollars and lead to even more deaths, more conflict, and more displacement."
Historical data support concerns about military intervention costs, with the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts totaling several trillion dollars over two decades. Current federal budget constraints and competing domestic priorities add political weight to fiscal arguments against unauthorized military action.
The legislation's funding prohibition approach attempts to use Congress's constitutional "power of the purse" to enforce war declaration authority even if broader constitutional questions remain unresolved. This strategy has precedent in previous congressional efforts to limit military actions through appropriations restrictions.
Congressional Votes and Political Implications
The privileged nature of both Senate resolutions will prompt congressional votes within days, creating political pressure on lawmakers to declare their positions on military action against Iran publicly. These votes will occur as Trump administration rhetoric continues escalating and Israel-Iran hostilities show no immediate signs of de-escalation.
For Trump, the congressional challenge represents an early test of his second-term relationship with Congress and willingness to respect legislative prerogatives. The president's response to congressional assertions of war powers could establish important precedents for future military action decisions.
Progressive activists view the current moment as crucial for establishing anti-war principles that could influence broader Middle East policy. Success in limiting Iran's military action could strengthen congressional authority over future conflicts, while failure might embolden further executive branch assertions of war powers.
Congressional Procedures and Timeline
Senate consideration of Kaine's resolution could begin as early as this week, given its privileged status, which requires prompt floor action. The House timeline for consideration of the Massie-Khanna resolution remains unclear and is subject to leadership scheduling decisions.
Trump administration officials will likely intensify lobbying efforts against the resolutions while simultaneously managing the ongoing Israel-Iran crisis. The intersection of immediate conflict management with longer-term constitutional issues creates complex political dynamics for all parties involved.
Congressional leadership faces pressure to allow votes that could embarrass the president while balancing concerns about party unity. The outcome will depend partly on Republican willingness to support constitutional principles over party loyalty and Democratic ability to maintain unified opposition to unauthorized military action.
Conclusion: A Critical Constitutional Moment
The bipartisan congressional effort to restrict Trump's Iran war powers represents a significant test of constitutional governance amid escalating Middle East tensions. With lawmakers from Bernie Sanders to Thomas Massie uniting around legislative war authority, the coming votes will determine whether Congress can effectively reclaim its constitutional role in military decisions.
The resolutions force fundamental questions about presidential war powers, congressional authority, and American military engagement in an increasingly volatile region. Regardless of immediate legislative outcomes, the debate has already highlighted deep concerns about unauthorized military action and the need for democratic deliberation before committing American forces to conflict.
As Trump weighs potential military action and Congress prepares for crucial votes, the next few days will shape both immediate Middle East policy and long-term constitutional precedents governing executive war powers. The American people, who polls suggest have little appetite for another Middle East war, will be watching closely as their elected representatives decide whether to reassert legislative authority over matters of war and peace.