As Congress remains out of session, the Trump administration is rapidly escalating the United States military posture toward Iran, prompting renewed warnings that a major war could begin before lawmakers have any opportunity to intervene. In response, Representatives Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie say they will attempt to force the House of Representatives to vote on a war powers resolution immediately upon returning from recess.
The move comes amid reports of a massive buildup of U.S. military assets in the Middle East and public statements from Trump officials suggesting that a military strike against Iran is increasingly likely. Khanna warned Wednesday night that the administration appears poised to act without congressional authorization.
“Trump officials say there’s a 90 percent chance of strikes on Iran. He can’t without Congress,” Khanna wrote on social media. “@RepThomasMassie & I have a War Powers Resolution to debate & vote on… before putting U.S. troops in harm’s way. I will make a motion to discharge to force a vote on it next week.”
The discharge motion would allow the resolution to bypass House leadership and come directly to the floor for a vote. Such a maneuver requires the support of 218 House members, a difficult threshold in a narrowly divided chamber. Still, Khanna said the effort is necessary given the speed with which the administration is moving.
Military escalation without congressional consent
Khanna said the Trump administration is already positioning the United States for a potential war. “Trump is positioning two aircraft carriers, a dozen warships, and hundreds of fighter jets to prepare for a possible war with Iran,” he said.
He described the potential consequences as severe, both for U.S. service members and for the broader region. “A war with Iran would be catastrophic,” Khanna said. “Iran is a complex society of 90 million people with significant air defenses and military capabilities. We also have 30,000 to 40,000 US troops in the region who could be at risk of retaliation. Congress must do its job and stop this march to war.”
The administration has offered little public explanation for why military action would be necessary at this moment. While the United States has continued diplomatic discussions regarding Iran’s nuclear program, Trump has openly endorsed regime change, stating last week that it “would be the best thing that could happen.”
Constitutional authority and the limits of presidential power
Massie has emphasized that the Constitution grants Congress, not the president, the authority to initiate war. Article I, Section 8 explicitly gives Congress the power “to declare war.”
Under the 1973 War Powers Resolution, the president may deploy military force without prior authorization only under narrow circumstances, specifically when there is a “national emergency created by an attack upon the United States.” Massie has said that no such condition exists.
“There’s no imminent threat from Iran to invoke [this exception in] the 1973 War Powers Act,” Massie said.
In a separate statement, he underscored his intent to force a vote regardless of political obstacles. “Congress must vote on war according to our Constitution. @RepRoKhanna and I will be forcing that vote to happen in the House as soon as possible,” Massie said. “I will vote to put America first which means voting against more war in the Middle East.”
A renewed effort following earlier congressional failure
This is not the first time Khanna and Massie have worked together to challenge Trump’s war-making authority. In June, following U.S. strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites during a 12-day war between Israel and Iran, the two lawmakers cosponsored a war powers resolution with 75 other representatives. That measure sought to require congressional approval for any further military action against Iran.
The resolution stalled after a ceasefire between Iran and Israel was reached, halting momentum before a floor vote could occur. Khanna has now warned that conditions are far more dangerous than they were earlier this year.
Unlike previous episodes, he said, the current buildup suggests the administration is preparing for a sustained and potentially expansive conflict.
The mechanics and political math of a discharge petition
War powers resolutions are considered privileged under House rules, allowing lawmakers to sidestep leadership resistance. Even so, success depends on assembling a majority willing to defy party leadership.
In the current House, Republicans can afford no more than one defection on a party-line vote, assuming full attendance. Absences or cross-party defections could alter that margin, but the outcome remains uncertain.
If all 213 Democrats support the discharge petition, at least five Republicans would need to join them. Massie is expected to vote yes, as is Representative Don Bacon of Nebraska, who previously crossed party lines on similar measures. Which other Republicans might follow remains unclear.
Recent war powers votes have come agonizingly close. In January, the House voted on a resolution requiring congressional authorization for U.S. military involvement in Venezuela following Trump’s operation targeting President Nicolás Maduro and the country’s oil infrastructure. The measure failed in a 215 to 215 tie, with Massie and Bacon joining all Democrats in support.
Another Republican critic of Trump’s foreign policy, former Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, had also supported prior war powers resolutions. She resigned from Congress in early January after a falling out with Trump.
Public opposition and mounting criticism
Polling suggests that the American public remains deeply skeptical of another Middle East war. A YouGov survey from early February found that 48 percent of respondents said they strongly or somewhat opposed military action in Iran, compared with 28 percent who supported it and 24 percent who were unsure.
Despite this opposition, Democratic leadership has faced criticism for failing to aggressively confront the administration’s march toward war. Advocacy groups argue that Congress has an obligation to act immediately rather than allow military action to proceed unchecked.
“The American public hasn’t even gotten a semblance of a rationale from Trump as to why we have to attack Iran now,” said Nathan Thompson, a senior policy adviser at Just Foreign Policy. “Congress needs to call up a war powers vote and do its job immediately to stop this disaster from unfolding.”
A vote with historic consequences
Khanna has framed the coming vote as one of extraordinary importance, comparing it to Congress’s decisions ahead of the Iraq War.
“Like the votes before the Iraq War, this could be one of the most consequential votes in the history of Congress,” he said. “Are we going to stop another endless dumb foreign war? Or will the neoconservatives mislead us once again?”
Congress is not scheduled to return from recess until Monday. By then, Khanna warned, a war may already be underway. Still, he said forcing a vote remains essential.
“If Trump is preparing to bomb Iran soon and others call for troops on the ground, Congress must get on the record, so Americans know where their representatives stand,” Khanna said.
As the administration accelerates its military posture and lawmakers prepare to reconvene, the question is no longer abstract. Whether Congress will reassert its constitutional authority or once again allow the executive branch to lead the nation into war may be decided in a matter of days.
COMMENTS