Johnson Pushes Back on ‘War Powers’ Vote Amid Iran Strikes

House Speaker Mike Johnson warned Monday that efforts to invoke the War Powers Act against President Donald J. Trump’s ongoing military operation in Iran would dangerously undermine the commander-in-chief at a pivotal moment.

Johnson’s remarks come as Reps. Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie prepare to force a vote this week on a war powers resolution that would require explicit congressional authorization before President Trump could continue using military force against Iran. The measure is reportedly expected to reach the House floor Thursday, according to a source who spoke to The Hill.

Critics of the operation argue the strikes risk escalating conflict and deviate from an “America First” doctrine. But Johnson pushed back forcefully, framing the resolution as both premature and potentially harmful to U.S. national security.

“I think the idea that we would move a War Powers Act vote right now, I mean, it will be forced to the floor, but the idea that we would take the ability of our commander in chief, the president, take his authority away right now to finish this job, is a frightening prospect to me,” Johnson told reporters following a classified briefing on the operation.

“It’s dangerous, and I am certainly hopeful, and I believe we do have the votes to put it down. That’s going to be a good thing for the country and our security and stability,” he added.

Over the weekend, U.S. forces, alongside Israeli allies, launched coordinated strikes against Iranian targets after weeks of escalating rhetoric from Tehran and renewed warnings from President Trump. Johnson noted that Congress’s bipartisan “Gang of Eight” had been “briefed in detail earlier this week that military action may become necessary to protect American troops and American citizens in Iran,” according to a post he shared on X.

On Monday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio explained that Iranian leadership was accelerating efforts to obtain what he described as “immunity” for its nuclear weapons program — namely, building sufficient ballistic missile capability to shield its facilities from destruction. According to Rubio, that accelerating timeline is precisely why President Trump acted decisively.

The president himself signaled that the operation is far from complete. Speaking with CNN Monday morning, Trump said the “big wave” is still ahead. When asked about the potential duration of hostilities, he responded, “I don’t want to see it go on too long. I always thought it would be four weeks. And we’re a little ahead of schedule.”

Johnson reiterated that the president is acting squarely within his constitutional authority under Article II.

“It’s not a declaration of war. It’s not something that the president was required, because it’s defensive in nature and in design and in necessity, to come to Congress and get a vote first. And if they had briefed a larger group than the Gang of Eight, you know, there’s a real threat that that very sensitive intelligence that we had, you know, might have been leaked or something,” he said.

“So, this is why the commander in chief of our armed forces has the latitude that any commander in chief, any president always has, because they have a set of information that is sensitive, timely and urgent, and they have to be able to act upon it. They did that.”

Meanwhile, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries is urging Democrats and sympathetic Republicans to support the resolution, arguing in a CNN interview that President Trump’s authority must be curtailed.

The constitutional clash is not new. Presidents from both parties have engaged in limited military actions without formal declarations of war, and every president since the War Powers Act’s passage in the early 1970s has raised constitutional concerns about its constraints on executive authority.

For conservatives, the central question is whether Congress should hamstring a president mid-operation — particularly when sensitive intelligence and the safety of American forces are at stake. Speaker Johnson made clear where he stands: stripping the commander-in-chief of operational authority during an active conflict would not strengthen America — it would weaken it.