Shortly after President Donald Trump authorized , members of Congress found themselves facing a familiar reality: they had been notified of the operation but given no role in its approval, once again highlighting their limited authority over war matters under the Trump Administration.
The White House stated that the so-called Gang of Eight—a bipartisan group consisting of top House and Senate leaders plus intelligence committee chairs, who receive briefings on the nation’s most sensitive security issues—were informed by Secretary of State Marco Rubio just before the strikes commenced. Administration officials had also briefed congressional leaders and intelligence committee heads earlier that week on . However, these notifications did not amount to formal approval from Congress, which the Constitution grants the power to declare war via Article 1.
Democrats were swift to claim that Trump had exceeded his constitutional authority and that Congress had been kept mostly uninformed about Iran’s threat. Sen. Andy Kim (D-NJ) told TIME that lawmakers and the public were being asked to accept military escalation without knowing the final outcome. “The President has effectively cornered us and made us responsible for issues we haven’t debated as a nation,” Kim noted, cautioning that discussions of regime change might strengthen hard-line groups in Iran and pull the U.S. into more extensive commitments.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer added in a statement that the Trump Administration had failed to provide “critical details regarding the scope and urgency of the threat,” and called on Congress to reconvene promptly to reaffirm its constitutional role.
Numerous rank-and-file legislators from both parties echoed this sentiment and told TIME this week that they had received minimal information about the Administration’s goals or legal justification prior to the strikes being executed, which reinforces the complaint that Congress is once again being forced to react to military action after it happens instead of debating it beforehand.
This pattern has become a repeated source of friction on Capitol Hill, where lawmakers have often been marginalized during the Trump Administration as key military decisions are made solely by the White House—such as last summer’s strikes on Iranian nuclear sites and a January military operation in Venezuela that led to the capture of President Nicolás Maduro. Both actions were taken without prior congressional approval. In each instance, lawmakers from both parties voiced complaints about being insufficiently informed and tried to prevent the Trump Administration from taking additional action without their consent, but those efforts ultimately did not succeed.
However, Republican leaders and several hawkish legislators stood behind the President on Saturday. Senate Majority Leader John Thune praised Trump for addressing what he called an ongoing nuclear threat from Iran. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) described the operation as “necessary and long overdue,” predicting it might speed up the fall of Iran’s ruling regime. Democratic Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) also lauded the strikes, stating that Trump “has been willing to take the right and necessary steps to achieve genuine peace in the region.”
But Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) noted that debate still persists over whether Operation Midnight Hammer—a series of U.S. military strikes targeting Iran’s nuclear program last summer—had actually destroyed its nuclear capabilities. “A year has passed, and we’re still trying to figure that out,” she told TIME. “We definitely set them back, which was positive—that was the goal.” Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) added that he had not been told about specific military plans, though he said he would support the removal of the Ayatollah from power.
Will Congress use the War Powers Act to curb further military action?
Now that the strikes are already in progress, the main formal tool Congress has to stop ongoing operations is the War Powers Act—a law intended to let legislators demand votes on military actions taken without congressional approval. Though often talked about before military action occurs, the law also gives Congress the ability to act after hostilities start, mandating that the President either seek approval for continued operations or withdraw U.S. forces.
This debate is now centered on two war powers resolutions that legislators were already planning to consider before the strikes happened. In the Senate, a bipartisan bill led by Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) and supported by Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) would require the President to get clear congressional approval before taking additional military action against Iran. A similar resolution in the House, co-sponsored by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA), aims to force the administration to stop any unauthorized military operations.
The Senate is likely to take up its resolution early in the week, while the House is set to vote a few days later—though Democrats have pushed Speaker Mike Johnson to speed up the timeline and bring lawmakers back sooner. Several senators have also demanded an all-member classified briefing and public hearings to review the administration’s legal reasoning and long-term strategy.
Even if both chambers pass the resolutions, their real-world effect is unclear. If approved, the measures could force the Trump Administration to get congressional approval before deploying more troops or expanding the operation in Iran—though the initial strikes can’t be reversed. However, the resolutions are widely expected to lack the two-thirds majority needed to override a likely presidential veto, so they would mainly serve as a political criticism and a formal statement of Congress’s constitutional power rather than an immediate check on military operations.
“Every senator must take a public stance on this dangerous, unnecessary, and foolish action,” Kaine stated.
