When the U.S. first launched missiles at Iran late last month, most Republicans on Capitol Hill gave Trump a pass, raising no objections to unilateral action despite Congress holding the sole constitutional power to declare war.
They reasoned, in part, that it was just an air attack.
But as the president toys with going a step further and potentially deploying ground troops, few Republicans are moving to intervene. Most are dismissing the idea as a hypothetical. Some are expressing zero interest in a vote, even if Trump deploys troops.
In short, Republicans in Congress want to defer to Trump.
Asked on Tuesday if he would ever want Congress to weigh in on the war at any point, Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., offered this threshold for a vote: “When there’s enough support to support what the president’s doing.”
“Honestly, I don’t think we ought to be holding divisive votes here, undermining what our commander-in-chief is doing, trying to take care of a menace,” he said.
Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., told MS NOW that since Harry S. Truman, “every president has a right for military action without a formal declaration of war.”
When MS NOW asked Republicans whether they’d want a vote to authorize war if Trump put boots on the ground in Iran, many GOP lawmakers simply declined to engage in “hypotheticals.”
“That is incredibly speculative. I don’t have any comment,” Sen. James Risch, R-Idaho, told MS NOW.
“I’m not going to answer hypotheticals,” Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., said. “I don’t think the president is going to commit troops.”
“I don’t think we’ll have to deploy conventional forces,” Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, said.
And Sen. Mike Rounds, R-S.D., called the idea of boots on the ground “hypothetical at this point.”
“I know of no plans like that,” he said.
Of course, the president and his team have repeatedly sidestepped opportunities to rule out the idea of putting boots on the ground.
During an interview on Monday, Trump told the New York Post, “I don’t have the yips with respect to boots on the ground — like every president says, ‘There will be no boots on the ground.’ I don’t say it.”
Axios also over the weekend reported that the administration is weighing sending special forces into Iran to secure highly enriched uranium.
When Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., was asked Tuesday when Congress would need to assert itself to authorize military action in Iran, his answer was far from definitive: “We’ll have to see.”
“We have asserted ourselves,” Johnson claimed. “The president, up to this moment, and his administration have complied in every way with every provision of law.”
Speaking at the House GOP retreat in Florida, Johnson suggested the White House had fulfilled its “legal obligation” by keeping Congress informed “during the operation.”
“If it comes to a declaration of war, then Congress would still act and exercise its authority,” Johnson said. “But we all know that that has not happened in many decades, in spite of the various excursions we’ve been involved in.”
(Congress did authorize the use of military force in advance of the two most notable U.S.-involved conflicts of the past two decades: the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. In fact, the Afghanistan AUMF — because it was so broadly written — has been used to authorize more than three dozen different military engagements, in 14 different countries, over nearly 25 years.)
But as some GOP lawmakers brush aside the need for a vote, and others dodge the question entirely, a handful of Republicans have made it clear they want Trump to come and ask for Congress’ permission before escalating this conflict — a notable shift from their response to the initial strikes.
Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Ark., told MS NOW that “when you put troops into combat situations, I think that Congress would need to authorize that.”
“That was my position in Venezuela,” he said, referring to the U.S. raid that resulted in the capture of President Nicolás Maduro.
“It’s always better when the president works with Congress on these matters,” Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, the former chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, told MS NOW Tuesday.
Asked if a vote in Congress for boots on the ground would be a red line for him, McCaul said it would be, noting the potential domino effects of deploying land forces.
“You put boots on the ground, you’re creating a magnet for jihadists,” he said. “You’re putting targets on the ground, not unlike what we saw in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think that would be a mistake.”
Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart, R-Fla., who sits on the House Appropriations subcommittee that oversees defense spending, also opened the door to Congress getting involved if the president moves toward sending in troops.
“I think he should come to Congress if the law requires him to come to Congress,” he said.
Already, the clock is ticking on the need for congressional action.
The War Powers Resolution, first adopted in 1973, sets a timer, automatically terminating the use of armed forces 60 days after the president launches hostilities — unless Congress declares war or votes to authorize the use of military forces.
In the Capitol last week, retiring Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., said if the 60-day mark comes, Congress should hold a vote.
“And I plan on supporting it,” he said. “Of course, we got — if it’s 60 more days, there’ll be a lot more events that will occur, and can always revise our opinions as time goes on.”
“But right now, I think the president did the right thing,” he said.
Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., the first female to graduate from The Citadel, said last week that she supports holding a vote 60 days into the conflict.
“Let your voters and your constituents know where you stand, whether you agree with it or don’t agree with it,” she said.
Just last week, the Senate declined to adopt a war powers resolution to rein in the president’s military authority with respect to Iran. The vote fell nearly along party lines, 47-53.
Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky was the sole Republican to back the measure, while Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania was the sole Democrat to vote against.
Paul, in an opinion piece published on Fox, argued that, because Congress did not consent to the attack on Iran, the American people “have been robbed of a public debate.” He also offered a broadside against top lawmakers in Congress. “The congressional leadership — resigned to their own irrelevance — will gladly hand the president the power to initiate war in exchange for plausible deniability,” he said.
The Senate, however, may soon get a chance to vote again — and again and again — on the president’s war powers.
A group of six Democratic Senators, angry about what they argue is insufficient transparency from the White House about this conflict, is threatening to force votes on similar Iran war power resolutions unless they get a public hearing about the war.
The tactic would have the practical effect of tying up action on the Senate floor while allowing for public debate about the merits of the conflict.
It also would force Republicans to, once again, face a vote on the Iran conflict.
Sen. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., accused Republicans on Capitol Hill of “abdicating” their responsibilities.
“We have filed our resolutions in order to get our Republican colleagues to acknowledge their duties as senators — to be a check and balance to this administration,” she told reporters Monday.
And Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., predicted it would become “harder and harder as this war gets uglier and uglier, deadlier and deadlier, more costly and more costly for Republicans to continue to vote in favor of this war.”
Jack Fitzpatrick, Nora McKee, and Peggy Helman contributed to this report.
Mychael Schnell is a reporter for MS NOW.
Kevin Frey is a congressional reporter for MS NOW.