As missiles fly and tensions rise in the Middle East, House Speaker Mike Johnson is making it clear: Congress won’t be weighing in on U.S. military actions against Iran—at least not right now. That decision is drawing swift backlash from both sides of the aisle, and setting the stage for a political showdown over who gets to decide when America goes to war.
Speaking to reporters Thursday, Johnson said the war powers resolution introduced this week “isn’t necessary” and “not the right time,” following last weekend’s U.S. airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. Iran responded by firing missiles at U.S. bases in Qatar and Iraq—ratcheting up an already fragile situation. Fortunately, there were no reported injuries.
Johnson defended the President’s actions as swift and appropriate, calling them a necessary response to what officials described as an “imminent threat” from Iran’s nuclear sites. “The President acted as commander in chief,” Johnson said. “This isn’t new. Presidents of both parties have done this when time is short and national security is on the line.”
The Resolution Johnson Rejected
The resolution, led by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA), would require the President to get congressional approval before taking any further military action against Iran. The goal is simple: stop the U.S. from sliding into another conflict without Congress having a say.
It’s already gathered support from more than 50 members of Congress, including both Democrats and Republicans who feel strongly that decisions about war shouldn’t rest with one person—no matter who’s in the White House.
Massie, never one to back down, posted Thursday: “Our War Powers Resolution has 57 cosponsors. Whether you like it or not, Congress will be voting on U.S. hostilities in Iran.”
Why It’s Such a Big Deal
Congress hasn’t formally declared war since World War II, but American troops have been involved in dozens of military operations over the last few decades. Most of them were authorized by the President without a full congressional vote, often under the 2001 or 2002 authorizations passed after 9/11 and the Iraq War.
Critics argue those old laws have been stretched way beyond their original purpose—and say it’s time for Congress to take back its constitutional role. Supporters of Johnson’s move say the President needs flexibility to act quickly, especially in fast-moving crises like this one.
What Could Happen Next
Even though Johnson is refusing to bring the resolution to the floor, the story may not end there. Under House rules, war powers resolutions can be considered “privileged,” which means lawmakers could force a vote within 15 days whether leadership wants it or not.
And over in the Senate, Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) is pushing a similar version of the resolution. That could be debated soon—though it faces a tough path in a narrowly divided chamber.
If either version passes, it would send a strong message to the White House: slow down, and bring Congress into the conversation before launching more strikes.
A Bigger Fight Over Presidential Power
At the heart of this is a question the U.S. has wrestled with for decades: who decides when we go to war?
Johnson says it’s about acting fast and keeping Americans safe. Lawmakers pushing the resolution say it’s about respecting the Constitution and making sure military force is used carefully—and only when the people’s representatives sign off.
With more military activity likely in the days ahead, this debate isn’t going away anytime soon.
