President Donald Trump speaks during his military parade on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., on June 14, 2025. Credit - Doug Mills—Pool/Getty Images As the war between Israel and Iran rages on for a fifth day, it is unclear whether the Trump Administration is preparing to intervene militarily. On Monday,U.S. forces were sent to the Middle East, ostensibly for "defensive" purposes, as Donald Trump left the G7 summit early and warned Tehran to evacuate. But whether the U.S. gets more involvedthan it already is, some members of Congress from both parties argue, is not a decision that should be up to the President. Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) announced plans to introduce a resolution on Tuesday that asserts the requirement of Congress' approval if Trump wants to commit armed forces to military action in the region. "This is not our war. But if it were, Congress must decide such matters according to our Constitution," Massiepostedon X. The resolution has already gained the support of progressive Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), whoreplied"Signing on" to Massie's post. It's also not the first proposal by a lawmaker seeking to limit U.S. military engagement in the conflict. Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) introduced awar powers resolutionin the upper chamber on Monday that would terminate the unauthorized use of U.S. armed forces against Iran, given that there has not been a declaration of war, which only Congress can issue. War powers resolutions are "privileged," meaning that the Senate is required to promptly debate and vote on the resolution. "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 said in astatement. "This resolution will ensure that if we decide to place our nation's men and women in uniform into harm's way, we will have a debate and vote on it in Congress." Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) also introduced a separatebill, cosponsored by Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), on Monday that would prohibit the use of federal funds for "any use of military force in or against Iran" without congressional approval, with the exception of self-defense. "Another war in the Middle East could cost countless lives, waste trillions more dollars and lead to even more deaths, more conflict, and more displacement," Sanders said in astatement. "I will do everything that I can as a Senator to defend the Constitution and prevent the US from being drawn into another war." While the measures seeking to constrain Trump are unlikely to pass in the Republican-majority House or Senate, proponents have said that they want to force lawmakers to show where they stand on an issue where the public has been very clear. According to aUniversity of Maryland poll in May, before Israellaunched its strikes against Iran last Friday, only 14% of U.S. respondents across political parties supported "Military action in attempt to destroy Iran's nuclear program." "It's time for every member to go on record," Khannaposted. "Are you with the neocons who led us into Iraq or do you stand with the American people?" War powers aredividedbetween Congress and the President, according to the Constitution. While the President is named the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, only Congress has the authority to decide whether the U.S. should go to war—either a total war or more limited uses of force. The President retains inherent defensive powers to use military force without congressional authorization if the U.S. is attacked, but congressional approval is still needed for a prolonged war. TheWar Powers Resolution of 1973provided further guidance on the President's war powers, including that the President must have congressional approval for the use of force abroad except for certain circumstances like safely removing troops or rescuing Americans overseas. Nevertheless, the executive branch has expanded its view of the President's defensive war powers, most notably with its interpretations of the 2001 and 2002 Authorizations of Use of Military Force (AUMF). Congress passed the2001 AUMFafter the September 11 attacks to allow the use of force against entities that "planned, authorized, committed, or aided" in the attacks or "harbored such organizations or persons." The2002 AUMFauthorized military action against Saddam Hussein's Iraq government "to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq" and was used to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq. But the authorizations have beencriticizedfor effectively giving Presidents a "blank check" to direct military actions without congressional approvalfar beyondtheir original intended scope. There have been multipleunsuccessful effortsby both parties torepealthe authorizations, including by Kaine in 2023 with thesupportof then-Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio), whosaid at the time: "I think the fact that you have a lot of Republicans who are very skeptical of continuing to provide a blank check here I think is a good sign." When Trump in his first term authorized the killing of Iranian general Qasem Soleimani, Defense Department general counsel explained at the time that it distilled the President's constitutional and statutory authority to direct military action into a broadtwo-part test: first, "whether the President could reasonably determine that the action serves important national interests," and second, whether the military action does not necessarily "bring the nation into the kind of protracted conflict that would rise to the level of a 'war.'" Conflict with Iran has dividedDemocratsandRepublicans—not along party lines but within them. While some "America First" voices haverallied againstdirect U.S. involvement, Trump's MAGA camp also includes war hawks like Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who hassaidon X that, if negotiations fail, the U.S. should "go all-in to help Israel finish the job." "If diplomacy is not successful, and we are left with the option of force, I would urge President Trump to go all in to make sure that, when this operation is over, there's nothing left standing in Iran regarding their nuclear program," Grahamsaidon CBS on Sunday. "If that means providing bombs, provide bombs. … If it means flying with Israel, fly with Israel." Nine lawmakers led by Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.), a pro-Israel Democrat, signed onto aletterimploring Trump to apply "crushing diplomatic pressure in addition to Israel's military pressure" on Iran towards zero nuclear enrichment. Trump, who also facespressure from Israelto join the war, has continued to urge finding a diplomatic solution to the conflict, but he's also expressed the possibility of U.S. involvement if Iran retaliates against U.S. targets. "If we are attacked in any way, shape or form by Iran," Trumppostedon Truth Social on Saturday night, "the full strength and might of the US Armed Forces will come down on you at levels never seen before." Contact usatletters@time.com.
