Khanna and Massie Push for Congressional Vote as U.S. Considers Military Action Against Iran
WASHINGTON, D.C. — As the possibility of U.S. military strikes against Iran grows increasingly imminent, Representatives Ro Khanna, a Democrat from California, and Thomas Massie, a Republican from Kentucky, are spearheading a bipartisan push to compel Congress to vote on any authorization of hostilities. The move comes amid reports that officials in the Trump administration estimate a 90% likelihood of strikes on Iran, raising urgent questions about the constitutional role of Congress in authorizing war.
Khanna and Massie have introduced a War Powers Resolution designed to require the president to seek congressional approval before engaging U.S. forces in hostilities against the Islamic Republic. “He can’t without Congress,” Khanna asserted in a recent post on X, emphasizing the constitutional mandate for legislative oversight on matters of war. Massie echoed this sentiment, stating, “Congress must vote on war according to our Constitution. I will vote to put America first which means voting against more war in the Middle East.”
The two lawmakers plan to make a motion to discharge the resolution from committee, forcing a floor vote as early as next week. This effort highlights growing concern among some members of Congress over the executive branch’s unilateral authority to initiate military action, especially in a region as volatile as the Middle East.
These developments unfold against a backdrop of heightened U.S. military presence in the region. The Department of Defense has reportedly deployed over 120 warplanes to the Middle East, signaling preparation for potential conflict. Meanwhile, President Trump has publicly warned Iran that it has a limited window to reach a nuclear deal or face “unfortunate” consequences, underscoring the administration’s hardline stance.
Legal experts and constitutional scholars have long debated the scope of presidential war powers, particularly in light of the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which was enacted to check the president’s ability to commit U.S. forces without congressional consent. Khanna and Massie’s bipartisan initiative seeks to reinforce this statutory framework amid escalating tensions.
Public opinion remains divided, with many Americans wary of entering another prolonged conflict in the Middle East. The Pew Research Center has documented fluctuating support for military interventions over the years, often influenced by concerns over costs, casualties, and geopolitical consequences.
Khanna and Massie’s collaboration is notable for bridging party lines on an issue often marked by partisan divisions. Their joint news conference earlier this month, held after reviewing unredacted portions of the Jeffrey Epstein files, demonstrated a shared commitment to constitutional principles and government transparency.
As the situation develops, the coming days will be critical in determining whether Congress asserts its constitutional authority or defers to the executive branch amid rising tensions with Iran. The vote, if forced, could set a significant precedent for how future military engagements are authorized and conducted.
Leave a Reply