The House voted Thursday on a Democrat-led Iran War Powers Resolution, aimed at limiting President Donald Trump’s military authority in Tehran — bringing to the fore a sharp debate over executive powers, and reviving fresh questions as to what level of consultation, if any, presidents must seek from Congress before proceeding with military strikes.
If passed, the Democrat-led Iran War Powers Resolution would have required Trump to terminate the use of any U.S. armed forces against Iran unless it was “explicitly authorized” by Congress. House lawmakers are largely split on the issue along party lines.
Speaking to Fox News Digital in an interview after the House vote, Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., defended her support for the new Iran War Powers Resolution. She said that, in her view, Trump had exceeded his authority and impinged upon Article I of the Constitution. “It’s about our Article I power,” she said.
Congress alone “has the power to declare war, and we cannot be putting our troops at risk based on the ‘opinion’ of any President unilaterally,” Jayapal said in a statement.
HOUSE VOTES TO LET TRUMP’S OPERATION EPIC FURY CONTINUE IN IRAN
The vote came amid war in the Middle East following the U.S. strike on Iran days earlier— and as some Democrats have accused the Trump administration of racing to involve the U.S. in yet another long-running conflict in the Middle East without first consulting Congress.
Republicans, meanwhile, maintain that the White House is acting within its authority in the best interests of the country.
Jayapal told Fox News Digital that she has long been a critic of other presidents who failed to consult Congress before taking military action — including under former President Joe Biden, after he ordered a U.S. airstrike on an Iran-backed militia in Syria.
“I spoke out against Biden as well,” Jayapal said of Biden’s 2021 airstrike in Syria.
HOUSE DEMOCRATS VOTE TO CONTINUE DHS SHUTDOWN DESPITE IRAN THREAT, NOEM’S OUSTER
“I spoke out against every Democratic and Republican president who tried to go to war without authorization, because I don’t think it should be partisan,” she continued, adding: “It’s about our Article I power.”
Her remarks come as the Democrat-led measure has sparked fierce opposition from nearly all GOP House members, and a small group of Democrats in the chamber, who noted that the commander in chief must retain some level of flexibility to respond to foreign threats and protect U.S. personnel and interests abroad.
They also criticized Democrats who supported the Iran War Powers Resolution for second-guessing military decisions during a sensitive moment overseas.
Earlier this week, a group of Democrats urged House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., to keep the House of Representatives in D.C. next week, citing the “rapidly evolving” situation in Iran.
TRUMP SAYS ‘LOSERS’ SCHUMER, DEMS WOULD HAVE CRITICIZED ANY DECISION HE MADE ON IRAN
Backers argue that restricting a president’s authority — and doing so in the middle of a volatile national security situation — could embolden foreign adversaries and undermine the U.S. ability to respond.
Democrats, meanwhile, have continued to cite concerns that Trump has failed to demonstrate an “imminent” threat that would justify unilateral military action under his Article II powers.
The vote underscores a broader, long-running bipartisan debate over the scope of executive war powers and Congress’ role in authorizing the use of force — a tension that has spanned multiple administrations and conflicts.
Jayapal, for her part, appeared unfazed by the GOP pushback.
She noted that, in her view, the U.S. action in Iran could be long-lasting, and is likely to have “much bigger consequences” than the U.S. involvement in Syria.
“There are real troops on the ground here in a way that wasn’t the case in Syria,” Jayapal said. “And I think it’s a much, much, much bigger war with no imminent threat.”
