House Rejects Bid to Curb Trump’s Iran War as ‘Operation Epic Fury’ Expands

Warplanes were still striking targets across Iran when the U.S. House of Representatives took up its own question of war and peace.

On Thursday, lawmakers narrowly rejected a measure that would have ordered President Donald Trump to halt U.S. military involvement in the conflict unless Congress explicitly authorized it, leaving his fast-expanding campaign — known as Operation Epic Fury — without new constraints from Capitol Hill.

The House voted 219–212 against House Concurrent Resolution 38, a bipartisan war powers measure that directed the president “to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities in or against the Islamic Republic of Iran” absent a declaration of war or specific authorization for the use of military force.

The vote came one day after the Senate turned back a similar effort. Senators on Wednesday defeated, 53–47, a joint resolution sponsored by Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., that sought to invoke the War Powers Resolution to remove U.S. forces from “hostilities in or against Iran” that Congress has not authorized.

Together, the votes represent the first clear test in Congress of Trump’s decision to launch large-scale strikes on Iran on Feb. 28 and highlight how reluctant lawmakers remain to assert their constitutional power over war once a conflict has begun.

In less than a week, Operation Epic Fury — a joint U.S.-Israeli air and missile campaign targeting Iran’s nuclear, missile and military infrastructure — has killed hundreds of Iranians, including civilians, and drawn American forces deeper into a volatile region. Yet the United States is now fighting a de facto war with no Iran-specific authorization from Congress, relying instead on the president’s own interpretation of his commander-in-chief powers.

A narrow but decisive “no” in the House

Thursday’s House vote fell mostly along party lines. The majority of Democrats supported the resolution, while nearly all Republicans opposed it. A small number of lawmakers in each party crossed over, enough to defeat the measure.

The resolution was introduced by an unusual pairing: Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., a libertarian-leaning conservative, and Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., a progressive foreign policy hawk. Both argued that the Constitution gives Congress, not the president, the power to decide when the nation goes to war.

“I drafted this resolution for our troops,” Massie said during floor debate. “The people’s representatives, not one person, should decide when to send Americans into harm’s way.”

Khanna said Congress could not “sleepwalk into another Middle East war” and urged colleagues to insist on a formal debate and vote before allowing an open-ended campaign in Iran to continue.

Opponents countered that it was the wrong time to limit the president.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., a close Trump ally, called the effort “a terrible, dangerous idea” and said it would “empower our enemies” by signaling disunity while U.S. forces are already engaged.

“This is a defensive operation,” Johnson told reporters, arguing that Iran’s missile and nuclear programs posed an imminent threat and that the United States was acting in collective self-defense with Israel. “We cannot tie the commander in chief’s hands in the middle of a fight.”

Some Republicans who typically support tighter limits on presidential war powers said they opposed the House resolution because of its scope. Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pa., a former FBI agent, said the language risked blocking critical intelligence, cyber and counterterrorism activities tied to Iran and its proxies, not just bombing campaigns.

Several Democrats, many from politically competitive districts, also voted no. In public statements and interviews, they cited concerns about appearing to undercut U.S. troops or Israel, even as they voiced reservations about a prolonged conflict.

Senate restraint push falls short

In the Senate, Kaine’s resolution drew support from nearly all Democrats and a small number of Republicans but failed to reach a simple majority.

Kaine, who has long pushed to rein in what he describes as decades of executive branch overreach on war, said the vote was about “whether we allow any president to plunge us into a war with Iran without authorization from Congress, and without support from the American people.”

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., broke with most in his party to back the measure. “This is a vote on whether to go to war or not,” he said on the Senate floor. “We should not allow our sons and daughters to be sent into a new war in the Middle East without a proper debate and vote.”

Most Republicans rejected that view, arguing that pulling back days after the first strikes would embolden Tehran.

A major war, a thin legal basis

The twin votes leave Operation Epic Fury proceeding under a legal rationale that critics say is unusually thin for a conflict of its scale.

The Trump administration has not sought a new authorization for use of military force, or AUMF, from Congress for Iran. With the 1991 and 2002 Iraq war authorizations now repealed, there is no standing statute that clearly covers direct hostilities against the Iranian state.

Instead, administration officials point to Article II of the Constitution, which they say grants the president authority to act in defense of U.S. personnel and interests, and to the principle of collective self-defense of allies. Johnson and other allies have described the strikes as necessary to protect U.S. forces and to support Israel, which is conducting a parallel operation code-named Roaring Lion.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt has outlined a sweeping set of objectives: “destroying Iran’s missile arsenal and entire missile industry,” “destroying Iran’s naval fleet,” crippling proxy groups, halting production of improvised explosive devices and ensuring “Iran can never obtain nuclear weapons.”

Civil liberties and advocacy groups argue that such aims far exceed any plausible notion of short-term self-defense.

The American Civil Liberties Union said in a statement that Trump’s decision to attack Iran without congressional authorization was “unconstitutional” and part of a “long and dangerous pattern” of presidents bypassing the War Powers Resolution.

Under that 1973 law, enacted over President Richard Nixon’s veto after the Vietnam War, presidents are expected to seek congressional approval for hostilities that last beyond 60 to 90 days. Section 5(c) explicitly allows Congress to direct the withdrawal of U.S. forces from such hostilities through a concurrent resolution — the legal mechanism Massie and Khanna relied on.

War powers specialists note that Congress has rarely used that tool successfully and that presidents of both parties have often treated the law as advisory.

Public unease and veterans’ warnings

The struggle in Congress comes as public support for the Iran campaign appears limited.

A recent national poll found that roughly a quarter of Americans back the strikes, while a majority say Trump is too quick to use military force and express concern about a new Middle East war. Large protests erupted in Washington, New York and other cities in the days after the first bombs fell, drawing a mix of anti-war groups, veterans and younger voters.

Veterans’ organizations have also weighed in. Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America said it was “deeply disappointed” by the defeat of the war powers resolutions, warning that another open-ended conflict would exacerbate ongoing strains on service members and veterans, including high rates of post-traumatic stress and suicide.

“We have seen this movie before,” the group said, pointing to more than 6,000 veteran suicides in 2023 and the long-term toll of the post-9/11 wars. “Congress owes our troops clear objectives and a clear vote.”

High costs, uncertain endgame

The Pentagon has not publicly released an overall cost estimate for Operation Epic Fury. An independent analysis by a Washington think tank put U.S. spending at roughly $3.7 billion in the first 100 hours — close to $1 billion per day — once munitions, aircraft operations and missile defense activities are included.

At least 50,000 U.S. troops have been deployed or repositioned to the broader region, along with two carrier strike groups and more than 120 aircraft. U.S. Central Command has confirmed at least six American service members killed and about 18 seriously wounded in retaliatory attacks by Iran or allied militias.

On the Iranian side, early estimates suggest that several hundred to more than 1,000 people have been killed, including members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and civilians. A strike on a girls’ school in the southern city of Minab killed more than 150 students and staff, according to local officials and aid groups, becoming a focal point for international criticism.

Oil prices have risen by double-digit percentages since the operation began, and traffic through the Strait of Hormuz — a chokepoint for global energy shipments — has dropped sharply, raising fears about broader economic fallout if the conflict drags on.

A familiar pattern, sharper stakes

Lawmakers in both parties acknowledge that Congress’ role in authorizing war has eroded for decades, through the 1991 and 2003 Iraq conflicts, the post-9/11 fight against al-Qaida and the Islamic State group, the 2011 Libya intervention and U.S. support for the Saudi-led campaign in Yemen.

What makes this moment different, analysts say, is that the United States is now engaged in sustained strikes against a major regional power, Iran, after reportedly targeting and killing its supreme leader, without a bespoke authorization — and in the face of an already skeptical public.

The House and Senate votes this week show there is a sizable bloc in Congress willing to push back. Yet they also underscore the political difficulty of doing so once bombs are falling and American troops are at risk.

Members still have tools at their disposal, including the power of the purse and the ability to draft a tailored Iran AUMF. For now, though, the votes leave Trump’s war footing intact, with a sprawling air campaign continuing over Iran and no clear timetable for debate on a formal authorization.

As the roll calls closed in both chambers, U.S. pilots were already flying another night of missions over Iranian cities and bases. The War Powers Resolution gives Congress a mechanism to force a decision on such conflicts. This week, lawmakers took that question up — and chose to let the war go on without a new vote.