Yesterday I wrote about an effort by Rep. Thomas Massie, a Republican from Kentucky, to pressure President Trump to seek authorization from congress before deciding on any strike against Iran. Rep. Massie’s effort was immediately joined by a group of Democrats including most of the Squad (AOC, Rashida Tlaib, Summer Lee, Ilhan Omar and Greg Casar were all onboard). Since yesterday Rep. Delia Ramirez joined in as well.
Democrat and Republican, we should ALL be clear that the power to declare war DOES NOT belong in the hands of the President. Punto.
When unaccountable, extremist leaders seek to profit from endless wars and human suffering, we in Congress have the obligation to affirm the… https://t.co/PK0I25itbo
— Congresswoman Delia C. Ramirez (@repdeliaramirez) June 17, 2025
And Rep. Pressley expressed support.
I continue to urge de-escalation and diplomacy. Stability of the region and civilian lives hang in the balance.https://t.co/sjUkbHGKsR
— Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley (@RepPressley) June 18, 2025
So for those keeping score, that’s the entire Squad as it currently exists that supports this effort. So perhaps it’s no surprise that today the NY Times editorial board published an editorial co-signing this argument.
A nuclear-armed Iran would make the world less safe. It would destabilize the already volatile Middle East. It could imperil Israel’s existence. It would encourage other nations to acquire their own nuclear weapons, with far-reaching geopolitical consequences.
Now, however, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel has acted to destroy Iran’s capacity to build nuclear weapons without first shoring up allies’ support. The United States faces being dragged into another war in the Middle East, with American lives at stake. And while the world tries to figure out what President Trump will do in the coming days, that is the wrong question. If Mr. Trump wants the United States to join the Israeli war against Iran, the next step is as clear: Congress must first authorize the use of military force.
Our laws are explicit on this point. An unprovoked American attack on Iran — one that could involve massive bombs known as bunker busters — would not be a police action or special military operation. It would be a war. To declare it is not the decision of Mr. Netanyahu or Mr. Trump. Under the Constitution, Congress alone has that power.
The editorial board went on to make clear what inspired the editorial.
On Tuesday, Representative Thomas Massie, Republican of Kentucky, filed a House resolution, along with Democratic colleagues, that would require Congress to sign off ahead of any offensive U.S. attack against Iran. Senator Tim Kaine, Democrat of Virginia, introduced a similar measure on Monday.
The bottom line according to the Times:
Let’s be plain: Bombing Iran would be a war of choice for the United States at this point. Mr. Trump, long a skeptic of foreign entanglements, seems to grasp as much. He spent months advocating diplomacy with Iran and questioning the wisdom of an Israeli attack, let alone an American one. “I want to have an agreement with Iran,” he said last week. If Israel started a war, he added, “that would blow it.” Only in the past few days has Mr. Trump waffled.
He has the right to change his mind, of course. But he should then make the case to the nation for committing American blood and treasure.
I took a look at the comments and they are universally made up of Democrats and progressives arguing there is no upside to a war with Iran. As you can see in the above excerpts, the Times simultaneously says Trump is probably considering limited bunker buster airstrikes and simultaneously argues this is a commitment of “American blood and treasure.”
My own take, as I said yesterday, is that many presidents, including Trump and Obama have launched isolated strikes in foreign countries, some aimed at terror groups and some at countries more broadly. For instance, President Obama did not seek congressional authorization for bombing in Libya and the NY Times take was much more supportive and measured at the time.
American commanders on Monday claimed success in attacking Libyan air defenses and command and control operations. Over the weekend, there were strikes against Libyan aircraft on the ground, forces headed toward Benghazi and even Colonel Qaddafi’s compound in Tripoli. Colonel Qaddafi remained defiant and announced plans to arm one million loyalists…
Mr. Obama should have brought Congress more into the loop on his decision, and must do so now.
There is no perfect formula for military intervention. It must be used sparingly — not in Bahrain or Yemen, even though we condemn the violence against protesters in both countries. Libya is a specific case: Muammar el-Qaddafi is erratic, widely reviled, armed with mustard gas and has a history of supporting terrorism. If he is allowed to crush the opposition, it would chill pro-democracy movements across the Arab world.
The Times is playing politics, as it often does. Here’s what USAToday reported about the current mood in congress and the history of the use of force.
Lawmakers in the House and Senate are divided on how and whether to act on President Donald Trump’s suggestion that he may authorize a U.S. strike on Iran amid missile attacks between Iran and Israel.
Congress is the only branch of government that has the power to declare war, according to the U.S. Constitution, but presidents have stretched their own powers to engage in foreign conflicts in recent decades because the president can authorize strikes in defensive cases…
Trump first ran for president in 2016 as an ardent critic of the war in Iraq. Once in the White House, he ordered a drone strike on an Iranian military commander, Qassem Soleimani, without telling Congress. Former President Barack Obama argued George W. Bush-era war authorizations from the early 2000s covered drone strikes in Yemen. And former President Bill Clinton conducted missile strikes in Sudan and Afghanistan in 1998 without explicit Congressional approval.
It’s not even clear President Trump is committed to strikes yet, though he does seem to have positioned a lot of hardware in a way that would make it possible.
