‘Acts of war unauthorized by Congress’: Trump’s congressional critics denounce Iran strikes

Some of President Donald Trump’s Capitol Hill critics were quick to condemn his administration’s military action against Iran early Saturday, criticizing what they described as an unjustified act of war that hadn’t been approved by Congress.

Shortly after reports of the attack against Tehran emerged in the predawn hours, frequent Trump-basher Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) characterized the strikes on social media as “acts of war unauthorized by Congress.”

Massie and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) had planned to force votes next week on legislation that would curb Trump’s ability to take unilateral military action against Iran without congressional approval. But the U.S.’ Saturday morning strikes came before the bipartisan pair was able to compel a war powers vote.

One of the first Democrats to respond to the strikes, Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), condemned the attack on social media, writing that “we can support the democracy movement and the Iranian people without sending our troops to die.”

In a Saturday morning video announcing the strike, Trump warned “the lives of courageous American heroes may be lost and we may have casualties. That often happens in war, but we’re doing this for the future.” It’s unclear if there were casualties.

Other lawmakers, including longtime Iran hawk Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) rejoiced at the joint U.S.-Israel operation, calling it “necessary and long justified.”

“The end of the largest state sponsor of terrorism is upon us,” Graham wrote on social media. “Freedom for the long suffering Iranian people.” The South Carolina senator has repeatedly encouraged military action against Iran, urging Trump to follow through on his January promise to respond with force after the Iranian regime killed thousands of its own citizens during a mass wave of protests.

In a longer post, Graham lauded what he called a “well-planned” operation, though he acknowledged it would be “violent, extensive and I believe, at the end of the day, successful.” Graham also deliberated on what he predicted would be the fall of the nearly 50-year old Islamic Republic, arguing that “the likelihood of normalization between Saudi Arabia and Israel getting back on track is exceedingly high.”

Crossing the aisle, Sen. John Fetterman (D-Penn.) joined Graham in cheering on the operation. “President Trump has been willing to do what’s right and necessary to produce real peace in the region,” Fetterman wrote on social media.

The attack is sure to be a politically risky move for the president — especially ahead of this fall’s midterms. Trump had vowed not to entangle the U.S. in any more foreign wars, a promise that he made part of his America First agenda. But as recent POLITICO polling showed, his base has embraced the president’s increasingly aggressive use of military might abroad, with nearly half of Trump voters saying they would support U.S. military action in Iran.

For lawmakers less eager to strike Iran, the Trump administration has sought to make the case that Tehran was working toward developing a nuclear weapon. During last week’s State of the Union, Trump accused Tehran of rebuilding its nuclear program — something the president has repeatedly said he would not allow happen.

In the days leading up to Saturday morning’s strikes, Secretary of State Marco Rubio briefed top House and Senate leaders and intelligence committee heads on Iran. Democrats emerged from the classified briefing arguing that the Trump administration needed to lay out its justification to the American public before entering into a potential war with Tehran.

“Look, this is serious, and the administration has to make its case to the American people,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune stressed at the time that “consultation” with Congress “needs to happen” on Iran before any military action.