The question of who holds the power to send American troops into combat is as old as our Constitution itself, and it is rearing its head once again as tensions with Iran reach a boiling point.
Two lawmakers from opposite ends of the political spectrum have found common ground on a matter of constitutional principle. Representative Ro Khanna of California and Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky are joining forces to demand that Congress fulfill its constitutional duty before any military action against Iran proceeds.
The urgency of their effort stems from reports that Trump administration officials are suggesting a ninety percent likelihood of strikes against the Islamic Republic. For these two congressmen, such action without congressional authorization would represent a fundamental breach of the constitutional order our founders established.
Khanna made clear his intentions this week, stating that he and Massie have prepared a War Powers Resolution designed to force debate and a vote on the matter before American service members are placed in harm’s way. He announced plans to file a motion to discharge next week, a procedural maneuver that would compel the House to take up the measure.
Massie echoed this commitment to constitutional governance, emphasizing that the Constitution requires Congress to vote on matters of war. He framed his position in terms of putting America first, which in his view means rejecting further military entanglements in the Middle East.
This bipartisan alliance represents something increasingly rare in Washington: a willingness to set aside partisan differences in defense of institutional prerogatives and constitutional principles. The War Powers Resolution they are advancing would require the president to terminate any unauthorized hostilities against Iran.
The Constitution vests the power to declare war in Congress, not the executive branch. Yet decades of military actions, from Korea to Libya, have blurred these lines beyond recognition. Presidents of both parties have ordered military strikes without formal declarations of war, often citing inherent executive authority or outdated authorizations for the use of military force.
The current situation with Iran is particularly delicate. Tensions have escalated following various incidents in the region, and the prospect of a wider conflict carries enormous implications for American interests, regional stability, and the lives of service members who would be called upon to execute any military action.
What makes this legislative effort noteworthy is not merely its bipartisan nature, but what it says about a growing unease across the political spectrum regarding endless military commitments in the Middle East. Conservative voices have increasingly questioned whether such interventions serve American interests, while progressive lawmakers have long opposed what they view as unnecessary wars.
Whether this resolution will gain sufficient support to pass remains uncertain. The House leadership will face pressure from members who believe the president needs flexibility to respond to threats, as well as from those who insist that constitutional processes must be followed regardless of the circumstances.
The coming week will test whether Congress is prepared to reclaim its constitutional authority over matters of war and peace, or whether it will once again defer to executive action when military conflict looms on the horizon.
Related: Boeing Returns Defense Operations to Missouri After Nearly a Decade in Virginia
