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

House Speaker Mike Johnson is warning that a Democrat-backed effort to invoke the War Powers Act could dangerously undermine President Donald J. Trump’s ability to defend the nation, as lawmakers prepare for a high-stakes vote on U.S. military operations targeting Iran.

The resolution—spearheaded by Rep. Ro Khanna and Rep. Thomas Massie—would require congressional approval before President Trump could initiate further military action against the Iranian regime. Critics of the administration argue the recent operations put American troops at unnecessary risk and stray from an “America First” foreign policy framework.

However, Johnson made clear that stripping the commander-in-chief of his authority in the middle of an active conflict would be both reckless and dangerous.

“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.

“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.

The push for congressional intervention comes after the United States, in coordination with Israel, carried out targeted strikes on Iranian assets over the weekend—an escalation following weeks of warnings from President Trump, who has openly called for regime change in Tehran. Johnson revealed that the bipartisan “Gang of Eight” had been fully briefed ahead of time, emphasizing that congressional leadership was aware of the potential for military action.

Meanwhile, Secretary of State Marco Rubio underscored the urgency behind the strikes, warning that Iran was rapidly advancing toward what he described as “immunity” for its nuclear program—effectively seeking the capability to shield its weapons infrastructure with advanced missile defenses. According to Rubio, that looming threat forced decisive action.

President Trump himself signaled that operations are far from over, telling CNN that a “big wave” of military activity is still ahead. When asked about the timeline, he indicated confidence in a swift resolution.

“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 defended the president’s actions as fully consistent with constitutional authority, rejecting claims that congressional pre-approval was required under the circumstances.

“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.”

Democratic leadership, however, is pushing back. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries is urging lawmakers to support the resolution, arguing that President Trump’s military authority should be constrained.

Yet historically, presidents from both parties have challenged the constitutionality of the War Powers Act itself, maintaining that it infringes on the executive branch’s Article II powers. For many conservatives, the current effort represents not just a policy disagreement—but a broader attempt to weaken the presidency during a moment of heightened global tension.

As the vote looms, the debate has become a defining clash over constitutional authority, national security, and America’s role on the world stage—raising serious questions about whether Congress should limit presidential power in the midst of active military operations.