EXCLUSIVE: AIPAC seeking out challengers to unseat Rep. Thomas Massie
'Their previous efforts have failed completely'
Democrats' campaign to limit Trump's war powers is dead in the water
Democratic lawmakers pushed legislation in both chambers of Congress last week with the aim of limiting President Donald Trump's war powers — something they sought in his first term and began gunning for again ahead of his second inauguration.
This campaign, spearheaded in the House by Republican Thomas Massie (Ky.) and in the Senate by Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine (Va.), picked up steam in the wake of Israel's June 12 military strikes on Iran's nuclear infrastructure and amid suggestions by the likes of Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) that America's direct involvement in the conflict was a foregone conclusion.
Although greatly strained by a continued exchange of explosives, the ceasefire between Iran and Israel that Trump announced on Monday and repaired Tuesday morning appears to have sapped much of the energy from lawmakers' war power delimitation campaign.
After all, it appears that Trump's controversial bombings — the kind that Democratic Reps. Ro Khanna (Calif.), Rashida Tlaib (Mich.), Chuy Garcia (Ill.), and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.) don't think the president should be able to order — did not pave America's way into another protracted Middle Eastern entanglement but rather paved the way to an exit for all parties involved.
In other words, campaigners must now convince their peers that Trump must be deprived of the powers he just used for a back-burn that spared Israel and its neighbors from a greater conflagration.
Massie noted several hours before Trump announced the ceasefire that his war powers resolution to prohibit America's involvement in Iran had 57 co-sponsors.
RELATED: Trump’s strike wasn’t an escalation — it was an exit
"Whether you like it or not Congress will be voting on U.S. hostilities in Iran," tweeted Massie. "Under the War Powers Act, the President is required to withdraw from hostilities in Iran within 60 days (+30 days ext.) unless he gets a vote of Congress."
The congressman changed his tune Monday evening, telling reporters, "I talked to the speaker on the floor just now and told him we wouldn't push [the measure] if the ceasefire holds, so it's really in their court," reported Politico.
'I still think we need to do it.'
Regardless of whether the ceasefire holds, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) made clear that the measure had no chance of survival, adding that Massie should "do right by the country and do right by the Republican team here" by dropping the measure.
Democrats, meanwhile, indicated that they still want to hold the doomed vote on the basis of hypotheticals and with the aim of virtue-signaling.
"We may ... have a conflict in the future, and we need to be on record saying no offensive war in Iran without prior authorization," Khanna told Axios.
Democratic Rep. Jim McGovern (Mass.) said, "I still think we need to do it."
"This is a serious matter. Congress ought to debate this," McGovern told Axios. "I complained about when Obama took action without congressional authorization; I complained when Biden did as well."
With Massie's initiative now virtually dead, New York Rep. Greg Meeks (D) is reportedly preparing to introduce his own war powers resolution, which looks to be an exercise in futility, given the "hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran" he seeks to end are apparently already finished.
'I acted pursuant to my constitutional authority as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive.'
Over in the Senate, the delimitation campaign similarly shows signs of stalling.
Kaine has delayed scheduling a vote on his resolution until he and his colleagues receive a classified briefing Tuesday afternoon on the conflict. Even if the vote proceeds, it's unlikely to go anywhere.
Blaze News senior politics editor Christopher Bedford noted that "most senators hate hard votes, war is a hard vote, and most of them like a belligerent foreign policy. So there's not really any serious, broad will in the Senate to retake war powers. It would take a whole lot more than this to change that."
Contrary to his critics' framing, Trump insists that he had the right to order the the strikes on the Iranian nuclear sites.
"I directed this military action consistent with my responsibility to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad as well as in furtherance of United States national security and foreign policy interests," he noted in a Monday letter to House Speaker Johnson. "I acted pursuant to my constitutional authority as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive and pursuant to my constitutional authority to conduct United States foreign relations."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Massie, Dems seek to limit presidential war-making authority amid talk of Iranian regime change
President Donald Trump's track record and repeated commitment to keeping the nation out of "endless wars" suggest that he does not have the interventionist reflex common to most of his predecessors.
Some lawmakers in Washington nevertheless appear uncertain amid the chatter about Iranian regime change, the recent buildup of U.S. forces in the region, the threat of an Iranian attack warranting American retaliation, and Trump's recent remarks — "Everyone should immediately evacuate Tehran!"
There is now a bipartisan effort underway to limit President Donald Trump's ability to commit the United States to military actions without congressional approval.
Background
Israel launched an attack Thursday on Iran, hammering its nuclear facilities, taking out many of its air defense systems, and eliminating top Iranian military officials.
Iran responded to the apparent decapitation strike with missile and drone attacks, and the two nations have exchanged deadly fire in the days since, threatening to put President Donald Trump's nuclear deal permanently out of reach.
Although the Trump administration initially stressed that the Israeli attacks were undertaken unilaterally and that the U.S. "was not involved" — a message the State Department recently emphasized in a directive to all of its embassies and consular ports — there are indications of foreknowledge and possibly even coordination on the part of Washington.
RELATED: Israel's strategy now rests on one bomb — and it's American
Regardless of its previous involvement, the U.S. has helped Israel shoot down Iranian missiles and drones and appears now to be preparing for another Middle Eastern engagement.
White House spokesman Alex Pfeiffer clarified Monday evening that American forces are not presently attacking Iran but are rather "maintaining their defensive posture."
Echoes of 2003
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth indicated that over the weekend, he "directed the deployment of additional capabilities to the United Central Command Area of Responsibility." The USS Nimitz — set to be decommissioned next year — is among the warships now headed to the Persian Gulf along with a number of refueling planes.
While bolstering America's military presence in the region, Trump nevertheless expressed hope for a peaceful resolution on Monday.
'Iran should have signed the 'deal' I told them to sign.'
Before leaving the G7 summit in Canada early to deal with the Iranian matter, Trump told reporters, "As I've been saying, I think a deal will be signed, or something will happen, but a deal will be signed, and I think Iran is foolish not to sign."
The Wall Street Journal indicated that Iran is desperate for a deal, telling Washington and Jerusalem through intermediaries that it wants an end to the hostilities — something Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is reportedly not presently interested in — and that it is ready to negotiate so long as the U.S. stays out of the fight.
"The Iranians know the U.S. is supporting Israel in its defense, and they are sure the U.S. is supporting Israel logistically," an Arab official told the Journal. "But they want guarantees the U.S. won't join the attacks."
The president appeared less hopeful Monday night, writing, "Iran should have signed the 'deal' I told them to sign. What a shame, and waste of human life. Simply stated, IRAN CAN NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON. I said it over and over again! Everyone should immediately evacuate Tehran!"
'What we're likely looking at is yet another nation-building exercise in the Middle East.'
The evacuation notice came a day after Netanyahu indicated that regime change "could certainly be the result" of the escalating conflict, which he framed as an "opportunity"; several hours after exiled Iranian crown prince Reza Pahlavi told Fox News' Maria Bartiromo Monday that it was a "matter of time" before the Iranian regime was overthrown; and shortly after Netanyahu said Israel was "doing what we need to do" when asked about plans to assassinate Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.
Meanwhile, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and other lawmakers on the Hill began speaking as though America's direct involvement in the conflict was a forgone conclusion.
"Israel has formally requested a direct US intervention in its war against Iran," Sohrab Ahmari, the Iranian American editor of Compact, noted in an essay on X. "What we're likely looking at is yet another nation-building exercise in the Middle East — except on a much vaster and more complex scale than anything attempted in the post-9/11 wars. In other words: another decade or two wasted in the Middle East. If you don't want that, pray for rapid de-escalation."
On Monday, Trump told reporters on Air Force One he was looking for "an end. A real end. Not a ceasefire — an end."
Another attempt to handcuff the president
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) — whom Trump said earlier this year "SHOULD BE PRIMARIED" — tweeted Monday evening, "This is not our war. But if it were, Congress must decide such matters according to our Constitution."
RELATED: Trump fires off serious threat to Iran — and then leaves G7 forum early to return to White House
"I'm introducing a bipartisan War Powers Resolution tomorrow to prohibit our involvement," continued Massie. "I invite all members of Congress to cosponsor this resolution."
Massie's initial pitch drew commitments from numerous Democrats, including California Rep. Ro Khanna, who wrote, "Are you with the neocons who led us into Iraq or do you stand with the American people?"
Sen. Tim Kaine, the Virginia Democrat who was Hillary Clinton's running mate in her most recent failed presidential bid, also took action Monday aimed at barring Trump from potentially embroiling the U.S. in a Middle Eastern conflict.
Kaine's war powers resolution would require a debate and a vote prior to the use of military force against Iran.
"It is not in our national security interest to get into a war with Iran unless that war is absolutely necessary to defend the United States," Kaine said in a statement. "I am deeply concerned that the recent escalation of hostilities between Israel and Iran could quickly pull the United States into another endless conflict."
Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.) also introduced legislation with several other Democrats Monday that would prohibit the use of federal funds for any use of military force in or against Iran without specific congressional authorization, stating, "Another war in the Middle East could cost countless lives, waste trillions more dollars and lead to even more deaths, more conflict, and more displacement."
Blaze News reached out to the White House for comment but did not immediately receive a response.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Progressive Democrat sits down with Glenn Beck despite disagreements: 'We're all Team America'
Glenn Beck hosted Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna of California on "The Glenn Beck Program" Thursday, where the two reached across the aisle to share some friendly disagreement, as well as some areas of common ground.
Khanna is one of few Democrats who refrains from acting as an ideologue and is willing to talk to those he will likely disagree with. Whether it's DOGE cuts or nuclear energy, Khanna has no problem breaking from his party's messaging.
"You've got a lot of followers, and look, at the end of the day, we're all Team America," Khanna told Beck. "We have differences of opinion, but this country has gone down a place of greater and greater division. And I do hope that the next generation, whether that's JD Vance, Rubio, myself, others, that we find some way of turning that around."
'They didn't talk a lot about my rights. They talked about my responsibilities.'
RELATED: Vance tells Glenn Beck Congress needs to 'get serious' about codifying DOGE cuts
Khanna's veneration for our country's founding makes him stand out within his party. Rather than condemning the roots and the history of our nation like some of his fellow Democrats, Khanna says he was raised to appreciate and value America.
"Our common, defining moment as a nation is the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as interpreted through the Declaration of Independence," Khanna said. "The biggest blessing I had, as a son of immigrants born in Philadelphia in our bicentenary, is I got to go to a school that taught American history and gave me a reverence for this country."
"My parents said, 'Ro, you won the lottery,'" Khanna added. "They didn't talk a lot about my rights. They talked about my responsibilities."
Beck and Khanna had their fair share of respectful back-and-forth on subjects such as the 14th Amendment and immigration. One area of agreement Khanna pointed out was about the role of government with respect to asset forfeiture.
"Progressive Democrats like me and libertarians in the Freedom Caucus often align, saying that the government shouldn't come in and be able to take things from citizens without due process," Khanna said. "I believe that's the essence of who we are as a people, that yes, you have inalienable rights endowed by God, and that's who makes citizens."
RELATED: Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' narrowly passes the House, notching another win for Johnson
Khanna also departed from his Democratic colleagues on the border, admitting that it was a weak point of their party platform.
"Someone said it's like a knock-knock joke," Khanna said. "You say, 'Knock, knock. Who's there?' The American people just want to know who's there, who's at the border, just like you would when coming to someone's house and making sure that people are vetted before they come in. That seems to be a very reasonable a place. We can agree."
"But I also believe that people here, now that they're here, if they're paying taxes, and you and I may disagree with this, if they're paying taxes, if they're working hard, and ... if they've been here that there should be some path to at least legalization," Khanna added.
Khanna insists that, above party, all people should be skeptical of their politicians. At the same time, Khanna said that the state of our divided politics is not due to a lack of skepticism, but rather to a lack of trust.
"Skepticism is healthy," Khanna said. "I get concerned if there were town halls and people weren't asking hard questions, weren't criticizing their politicians. But I think there's a difference between skepticism and what's happened now, which is just the loss of trust, the sense that people aren't in it for the country, aren't in it for the public good."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Today's top stories
thefederalist.com
www.theblaze.com