Bipartisan War Powers Resolution Aims to Reassert Congressional Authority Over Military Action, Challenging Donald Trump’s Plans for Strikes in the Middle East after U.S.- Israel Attacks Iran

Congress Moves to Limit Trump’s Ability to Conduct Military Strikes on Iran

Washington, D.C. – U.S. lawmakers are moving to assert their constitutional authority over military action as tensions with Iran continue to rise. A new War Powers Resolution is being advanced in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, aimed at restricting President Donald Trump from launching unilateral military strikes without explicit Congressional approval.

Under the 1973 War Powers Resolution, the President is required to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing U.S. forces to combat and must end military action within 60–90 days unless Congress authorizes further action. Lawmakers say the resolution is necessary to prevent the President from engaging in prolonged or escalatory conflicts without oversight.

Leading the push are Senators Tim Kaine (D‑Va.), Chuck Schumer (D‑N.Y.), and Representative Ro Khanna (D‑Calif.), alongside bipartisan support from lawmakers like Rep. Thomas Massie (R‑Ky.). The resolution does not impede legitimate self-defense actions but would require Trump to come to Congress for approval before authorizing offensive strikes against Iran.

“Congress has the constitutional responsibility to declare war,” said Rep. Khanna. “We cannot allow the President to unilaterally drag the country into conflict in the Middle East.”

The resolution comes amid growing concerns over reports of military buildup in the region and potential confrontations with Iranian forces. Supporters argue that requiring congressional approval would ensure accountability and prevent rash military decisions that could escalate into a larger conflict.

However, the effort faces stiff opposition. Many Republicans, particularly in the Senate, argue that limiting the President’s authority could undermine the nation’s ability to respond swiftly to threats abroad. Previous attempts to pass similar measures have failed, with lawmakers citing concerns over executive flexibility in national security matters.

Political analysts say the resolution is as much about reasserting Congress’s constitutional role as it is about controlling Trump’s foreign policy decisions. While passage in both chambers may be unlikely, the debate underscores the ongoing tension between executive power and legislative oversight in matters of war.

As Washington prepares for the vote, all eyes are on how Congress will balance national security needs with constitutional checks on presidential authority—and whether Trump will heed the resolution or challenge it in court.