Capitol splits as Trump’s strikes on Iran prompt calls for war authorization vote

President Donald Trump’s announcement that U.S. forces, alongside Israel, struck targets in Iran sparked an immediate partisan rupture on Capitol Hill, with Republicans broadly applauding the action and Democrats demanding congressional authorization and briefings as explosions reportedly rocked Tehran.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said Democrats will force a House vote next week on whether to authorize the use of military force, arguing that the chamber must reassert its constitutional role after the administration carried out strikes without consulting lawmakers. Representative Gregory W. Meeks, ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, issued a blistering statement calling the strikes “a reckless abuse of the president’s power” that risks dragging the United States into “yet another open-ended Middle East war” without a defined strategic end state.

Speaker Mike Johnson defended the operation, saying “Iran is facing the severe consequences of its evil actions” and portraying the strikes as part of long-standing efforts to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and to counter its support for groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah. Several Republican lawmakers echoed that framing, with Representative Mike Lawler saying, “I support the President’s decision to strike Iran,” and adding that the strikes could open a path for the Iranian people “to determine the future of their country after 47 years of tyranny and oppression.”

The battlefield of opinion within the GOP is not uniform. Representative Warren Davidson posted on social media on Feb. 26 that “War requires Congressional authorization” and said “no case has been made.” Representative Thomas Massie, normally aligned with GOP leadership on many issues but a consistent advocate for congressional checks on war powers, called the strikes “acts of war unauthorized by Congress.” Massie and Representative Ro Khanna have announced plans for a War Powers Act vote next week that could, if passed, curtail the president’s ability to conduct hostilities without express congressional approval.

The split extends into the Senate. Senator John Fetterman, a Democrat who has broken with his party on the response, said in a social post that the president “has been willing to do what’s right and necessary to produce real peace in the region.” Senator Lindsey Graham celebrated the strikes on social media, declaring “the end of the largest state sponsor of terrorism is upon us,” while Senator Ruben Gallego called the action “illegal,” warning against sending U.S. troops into a regime-change conflict that has not been justified to the public.

Legal and institutional questions are front and center. Watchdog voices invoked the Constitution’s allocation of war powers to Congress; David Janovsky of the Project on Government Oversight said the president’s action “is yet another flagrant abuse of power.” Senator Kaine, a member of the armed services and foreign relations committees, said the War Powers Act could be invoked even after hostilities began and urged Congress to return immediately for deliberation.

Beyond the constitutional fight, lawmakers warned of practical costs. Democrats and some Republicans noted the risk of a costly, open-ended commitment in the Middle East and demanded classified and public briefings to justify the action and disclose its objectives. Analysts say renewed conflict risks heightening geopolitical risk premiums, pressuring energy markets and increasing volatility in financial markets, even as supporters argue the strikes weaken a state sponsor of terrorism.

For now, the immediate outcome is procedural: congressional leaders are organizing votes and demanding briefings next week, setting up a test of whether lawmakers will reassert authority over the use of American military power or endorse the administration’s unilateral decision.