House Democratic veterans—including Vietnam vet Mike Thompson and Afghanistan veteran Jimmy Panetta—unanimously condemn the U.S.-Israel strikes on Iran as an unauthorized conflict, citing six U.S. deaths and shifting justifications like Trump’s alleged personal vendetta against Iran’s leadership. They reject claims of nuclear threats or regime change urgency, calling the strike a "war of choice" fueled by lies and economic strain, while demanding congressional authorization under the War Powers Act. With resolutions like H. Con Res 38 pushing to halt hostilities, veterans prioritize constitutional checks over partisan loyalty, framing the vote as a moral duty to prevent another ill-conceived Middle East war. The administration’s refusal to seek AUMF or clarify its authority—despite precedents like Iraq 2002—risks escalation without public debate, forcing lawmakers into a 24-hour push for accountability. [Automatically generated summary]
This is also a massive victory for democracy and for freedom.
Who's your representative?
Who sits on which committee?
Where do you even start?
C-SPAN's official congressional directory.
Get essential contact information for government officials all in one place.
The congressional directory costs $32.95 plus shipping and handling, and every purchase helps support C-SPAN's nonprofit operations.
Get your congressional directory by scanning the QR code or at c-span shop.org.
Stay informed.
Stay engaged.
Next, House Democratic Veterans holding a news conference in protest of U.S.-Israel strikes on Iran.
The member spoke ahead of the votes in the House and Senate on two separate war powers resolutions to block further military action without authorization from Congress.
So I'm going to go to you first, sir.
If that works, I'll start and then go to you.
Yeah.
It's not a progress.
Oh, I'm second.
Sorry.
And I got changed.
Does anybody need to move?
Why don't I have a term for a meeting?
Keep good.
All right.
Good morning, everyone.
Thank you very much for coming.
This is not a topic we want to be talking about.
It's now the second time we've had our group of Democratic veterans stand and speak out against another war initiated in just the first year of the Trump administration.
But that is certainly part of all of our duty on behalf of our constituents and especially those serving in uniform right now in harm's way.
So I'm going to kick us off, but I particularly wanted to ask our colleague, Representative Thompson from California, to start, and so I'll hand it to him.
Pat, thank you very much.
Thanks for organizing this and thank you for asking me to join.
I'm Mike Thompson from California's 4th congressional district and I served in combat in Vietnam with the 173rd Airborne Brigade and I'm here with my colleagues who I'm very proud to stand with and every one of us know a couple of things.
We know that war is hell and we also know that combat's worse.
We also know that Congress declares war, not the President of the United States.
I left the briefing yesterday evening and I had more questions than when I got there.
It was pretty clear there's not an adequate plan.
There's most certainly not congressional authorization.
And the justification is ever-changing.
We've heard three or four different justifications for why this is taking place.
Now we all know that the Iran regime is bad.
It's terrible.
It is absolutely terrible.
But still, you need Congress in order to declare war.
Congress did not participate in this.
The American people and the Congress need to know the proper information, the proper reasoning, the proper justification, and there has been no honest answer to those questions.
I'm here to say I'm a yes vote on the War Powers Act, and I'm a very strong no on any more forever wars.
And I'm going to turn it over to Jason here.
Next.
Next.
You might have to.
Oh, yeah, go ahead.
I particularly wanted to ask Representative Thompson to go for two reasons.
One, he is the only veteran among us and one of only two in the Congress that served in combat in Vietnam.
And two, and he didn't say this because he's a humble guy, in his beginning of his service in Congress, he voted against sending myself and many up here to war in Iraq.
And so we see history, if not repeating, certainly rhyming.
And I think it's why, for me anyway, and I think a bunch of us, it is especially important.
And we take very seriously and solemnly the duty to ask the hard questions that weren't asked before a lot of us were sent and before a lot of us lost our brothers and sisters in arms.
And I just want to say briefly on my end, I love this country.
I love the United States of America to the point that, like everybody here, I signed up to serve and risk my life and then I lost brothers and sisters who had that same love for country and love for each other.
And I've been thinking a lot in the last three or four days since this war was declared.
And let's be clear, this is a war, despite rhetoric from the administration and confusion otherwise.
What is the best way to honor the individuals whose names I still wear on this bracelet that I lost in combat?
And to me, it's to speak out.
It's to say another generation should not go fight in an open-ended, ill-conceived regime change war in the Middle East.
And to be very clear, what tomorrow's vote is, it is not a procedural or administrative vote.
It's not theoretical.
And yes, it is about war powers and that's what it's called, but it's really a vote and every vote about whether we want another war, whether we want more flag-drape coffins of young Americans, and we've already had six coming home.
And so every American deserves to know at a minimum where does your representative stand on sending our blood and treasure overseas versus spending it here at home on lowering our costs on our education system and our infrastructure and so much more.
So I also will be a yes vote tomorrow and a no vote on funding or any other support for another forever war anywhere and certainly in the Middle East.
Did Jason show up?
Jason's not here yet.
You need to next on the list, unless you good?
Why Our Military Isn't Trump's Private Army00:15:31
All right, we're subbing in Mr. Vinman from Virginia.
Thank you, Pat, and thank you to all of my veteran colleagues.
So for those of you that don't know, I served 25 years in the United States Army as an infantry officer, paratrooper, and as a JAG, and I deployed to Iraq.
And my twin brother was wounded in an IED attack in Iraq, an Iranian manufactured, explosively formed projectile.
And so I will not be shedding a tear for the Iranian regime and the Ayatollah.
I understand the threat, but I also understand that the wars are easy to start and hard to finish.
And this one, Let Us Not Make a Mistake, was a war of choice.
What we heard yesterday was a series of lies about, and the story keeps changing, whether it was imminent or not, whether there had to be a response.
This was a war of choice.
This is a commitment of American blood and treasure to a conflict that we didn't need to be engaged in.
And I know from my personal experience and from the experience of many of the folks that are here with me today that in our last wars in the Middle East, they were measured in years and American blood and American treasure.
So no, Americans are stretched thin.
Gas prices are up, utility bills are up, grocery prices are up.
All the while Republicans are giving billionaires handouts.
And you know what's expensive?
A war with Iraq.
So earlier today, there's already a tracker on the projected cost of the war in Iraq.
And it's going up $2,500 a second.
It's well over, I think, $2.5 billion.
Somebody can correct my math on that one, but it's been an hour since I last checked, so it's a lot more expensive.
So instead of focusing on lowering costs at home, we're drifting towards another open-ended conflict in the Middle East where six Americans have already been killed, three jets have been shot down by friendly fire.
These losses are not just financial.
We all know that have served in war.
They are born by families that receive a knock on the door in the dead of night.
Congress must act now to check the president's power and choice of war and refocus our efforts on lowering costs for the American people and keeping our troops out of unnecessary danger.
All these things come at a cost.
As we're expending hundreds of millions of dollars in interceptors, those are coming at a cost of supporting our allies in Ukraine and preparing for contingencies in China.
Something that we all need to be concerned about.
And that's why I'm joining my colleagues in the Democratic Veterans Caucus in supporting the war powers resolution.
So we stopped writing blank checks overseas while struggling American families struggle here at home.
And we stopped risking American lives without a clear, lawful path forward.
Again, this war is a violation of international law.
It's also a violation of domestic law in that it was not authorized by Congress.
There's no authorization for military force.
Whatever lies my colleagues on the other side are saying and the administration are saying, those are facts.
We owe it to the American people and to our troops to put a stop to this madness.
Thank you.
And with that, I have the privilege of introducing my friend and colleague, Congressman Seth Moulton.
Chris DeLuzio.
Oh.
My friend and colleague, Chris DeLuzio.
That's it.
Thank you, Eugene.
Thanks.
I'm glad to be joined by my fellow Democrats and fellow veterans in the Congress.
We all swore an oath in uniform.
We've all sworn that same oath here in the Congress.
We all love this country.
I think that's exactly why we see so clearly that this is a war that we do not need to be fighting.
We do not need to be having Americans go fight.
It's a war of choice.
It's a foolish one.
It is one the American people and the Congress have not authorized, have not said that Americans should go spill their blood and risk their lives for this.
My standard for whether we send Americans to fight is a pretty straightforward one.
I think it's one that makes a lot of sense.
Can you look the American people in the eye?
People of fighting age and say this is something you should be willing to risk your life and die for.
And what I see out of the Republicans and this president, they haven't even tried.
And if they were to try, the American people would say no, because they understand this is not a war that we have to fight.
Our generation of veterans, so many will bear the cost for as long as they are alive of the last Middle East regime change wars, the forever wars that so many of us served in.
Those too, especially Iraq, justified by lies.
And what are we seeing?
Billions of dollars spent, six Americans dead, more wounded.
This administration has no problem finding billions of dollars to go fight a war the American people didn't authorize while taking health care away from people, while taking away food stamps, while taking a sledgehammer to the VA that we will have to fight them to fund when these folks become veterans and come back home who need health care and benefits that they've earned.
That's who these folks are.
So we're saying no, let's pass this war powers resolution.
And before we get into some legal argument, and by the way, this is a war.
We get no legal argument about the war powers resolution.
What did Pete Hegseth today say?
He called this war because of course it is.
So they can have their legal arguments, they're wrong.
They can have the facts on the ground, which is this is a war.
A war the American people do not want, a war that we are going to try to stop.
That's what our Constitution requires.
That's what our oath requires.
Is Mac here?
Okay, I'm proud to introduce my friend from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Seth Bolton.
I got him before he got me.
That's what Donald Trump, the commander-in-chief, said about launching a war with Iran and killing the Ayatollah.
Nothing about protecting America.
Nothing about our allies.
Nothing about a strategy or an end goal.
Nothing about the six Americans already dead.
Just all about himself.
Six U.S. service members are dead.
And Donald Trump has signaled that more casualties are coming.
That's acceptable to him.
As long as Donald Trump is alive, seems like a good trade.
The math works out.
A good deal.
The art of the deal.
Six dead for his life.
It's not lost on any of us that this is the man who was more than happy to let someone else go in his place in Vietnam while he fabricated a sore foot to dodge the draft.
The man who said troops are suckers for signing up and losers for getting killed and made fun of John McCain for getting captured.
It's a good deal to settle his personal vendetta, he seems to think, for six young Americans.
This isn't a war for America.
This is Trump's war for Trump.
And every service member deserves a commander-in-chief who gives a damn about them, not just himself.
You don't respect the troops, Mr. President, and you never have.
Now I'm pleased to introduce my friend and colleague from California, Gil Cisneros.
Thank you, Seth.
I am Congressman Gil Cisneros.
I represent the 31st District in California.
And like many Americans, I woke up on Saturday morning to the news that we are at war with Iran.
The news came from the same president that campaigned on no more wars, the same one who bombed Venezuela just two months ago.
But despite what he may think, Donald Trump does not have the ability to declare war.
Only Congress does.
As a Navy veteran, a current member of Congress, and former Under Secretary of Defense at the Pentagon, I know that is not the way that things are to be done.
I've heard nothing from this administration that justifies engaging in conflict in the Middle East.
Nothing.
Our military is not Trump's private army.
Our national security and the safety of our service members overseas are not tools for the president to call on when he's in the mood for a conflict.
These are real lives on the line.
As a result of this unprecedented and unauthorized war, we have six service members who have lost their lives, families whose lives are now altered forever.
My thoughts go out to these families and loved ones of their service members that we have lost.
We cannot allow their ultimate sacrifice to be taken for granted.
We need to hear directly from the president about his plan to prevent another aimless and endless war.
We need to hear about the details that prompted this illegal attack on Saturday.
And we must pass this bipartisan war powers resolution now to rein in Trump's deadly overreach for the safety and security of every American.
So thank you very much.
And now I'd like to call on my former current Californian and Navy veteran, Jimmy Panetta.
Thank you, Gil.
Thank you, Gil.
Good afternoon, everybody.
Jimmy Panetta from the great state of California, Afghanistan war veteran 07-08.
The U.S. conflict in Iran is about to be the least debated prolonged war in American history.
But this is what happens when you have a president that commits troops to war without the consensus of the American people, without the coordination of Congress, and without complying with the Constitution.
And that is why I am voting for the bipartisan war powers resolution.
Now, although this president campaigned on ending forever wars, in his first year alone, this administration invaded seven sovereign nations eight different times.
And in every single attack, he ignored the will of the American people.
Look, don't get me wrong.
We know that Iran has blood on its hands.
But this president has failed not just to make the case, but to tell us why Iran was an imminent threat to the homeland.
So instead, we are relying on incoherent justifications for invading a sovereign country and committing our troops to this conflict.
We don't know the administration's goals.
We don't know the plan for the day of, and we definitely don't know the strategy for the day after.
But what we do know is that airstrikes don't lead to regime change, especially with a regime and a military like Iran's that is so sprawling and spread out.
And so this will not be Venezuela.
And this is not about regime change.
This is going to be about regime collapse.
That means more time is needed for this conflict.
More resources are going to be invested by the U.S.
And more troops will be committed by the United States.
That means there must be more debate in the United States Congress.
Never has the United States started a war of this magnitude without some form of buy-in from Congress and the American public.
And that is why I support Representative Massey and Khanna's bipartisan war powers resolution that mandates explanation and accountability from this administration, debate and deliberation from Congress, and consensus and concordance from our constituents.
Let's be clear.
This is not just about the president's failure to consult Congress.
This is also about Speaker Johnson's refusal to demand consultation and authorization.
The American people deserve that.
And that's why I'm voting for this war powers resolution.
And that's how we as veterans who stand up here today, who represent our constituents in the United States Congress, that's how we uphold our responsibility to you, to this institution, and to our oath to the United States Constitution.
Thank you.
It's a great pleasure to introduce Chrissy Houlihan from the Great Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
The Great Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
Thank you.
And this is an instance where I hope that you at this point in time have gotten the message from all of us, each of us who stands here having served in the military in one capacity or the other.
I myself served at the tail end of the Cold War and the beginning portions of the desert storm period as well in the Air Force.
And I think that one thing that hasn't yet been said of all the things that should be said is to focus in on Speaker Johnson and his complete failure to use the constitutional powers that we as a Congress have to demand that there be a conversation, that there be a debate.
Because I stand here representing more than 700,000 people in my community.
I am their voice, and I have the responsibility, the obligation to be able to have this conversation about whether this war is justified or not and whether or not we should be putting our men and women in uniform in another combat situation that could be endless, as this sign is indicating here.
And Speaker Johnson specifically has made choices.
He's canceled votes last week.
He's canceled votes this week, in my opinion, all in an attempt to silence us and to keep us quiet.
He, in conducting the meeting last night, was very rigorous in the timelines that were allowed, which I think was obscene given the fact that we haven't had the opportunity to ask the questions that we should have.
And this is the only environment as a member of the Armed Services and the Intelligence Committee that I have yet had to see and talk to those people who are part of the decision-making process on the executive branch side.
The last thing that I will say about this is that he has also canceled things like the Foreign Affairs Committee hearings, canceled things like the Intelligence Committee.
All of this is our responsibility, our constitutional obligation to be part of this conversation.
And so while I'm very, very angry and raging at the administration and this president for getting us into another endless war, I am equally angry, if not more angry, at the fact that Speaker Johnson has abdicated our responsibility and has yielded to this president because apparently he feels as though he's a king.
Rationales For War00:05:48
With that, I will yield to Maggie Goodlander and I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you all.
I want to thank Congressman Ryan for bringing us together.
The president has launched a war of choice against Iran.
Six patriots have given their lives in this war already.
Thousands of fellow Americans are stranded in the Middle East right now.
Gas prices, oil prices have spiked like nothing we've seen in decades.
The president did this without a clear reason.
It's a shifting set of rationales that is an insult to every American who loves this country and who understands that war is hell.
He cannot answer the basic question of how this ends.
And what he has done defies common sense and the Constitution.
So anyone who's served in uniform understands that you don't write a blank check to any president to wage war.
And as members of Congress, we will be relentless in upholding our oaths to this Constitution and in doing our jobs.
And that starts with passing a war powers resolution that should have come to the floor of the House long ago.
And that in a disgraceful and dangerous dereliction duty, the Speaker of the House has stood in the way of Congress in doing our job for the American people.
We will be relentless because the people of this country, every person who served in uniform, deserves answers and accountability.
So I thank you, and I'm proud to stand alongside my colleagues in this effort.
Good morning, everyone.
I am very proud to stand here with my fellow veterans and raise a voice against this reckless action by this administration.
Congress alone has the authority to declare war.
The President's unilateral military action against Iran without congressional authorization is illegal.
There are still serious unanswered questions about how and why the decision to strike Iran was made.
We do not know, what we do not know is that these actions have endangered American diplomats, government personnel, and service members stationed abroad.
As expected, Iran has retaliated against U.S. military installations in the Middle East, risking the escalation to a broader war.
We've already seen missiles invading Turkish airspace, which could in fact implicate NATO.
And as you know, we have heard several rationales for this war, none of which are particularly credible.
All of a sudden, after telling us he's destroyed all the nuclear weapons in Iran, we now have the risk of a strike against the continental United States by the nuclear weapons that he said were destroyed.
We have rationales about imminent threat.
We have preemptive war.
We have a war of choice, which is certainly against international law and, as has been mentioned, against our constitutional principles here in our own country.
Let me be clear: the Islamic Republic of Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism, an adversary to the United States, and maintains a dangerous nuclear program.
The regime has brutally suppressed its own people and killed thousands of protesters.
But acknowledging the threat does not justify abandoning the Constitution.
As a veteran, I believe diplomacy and that reckless military escalation should have guided negotiation.
And indeed, the previous administration had a deal with Iran.
We had inspectors in there observing their nuclear capabilities.
We had monitors there.
The president ripped that up and has then told us half-truths, untruths about the actual state of what's going on.
We had eyes on the ground, and now we don't have them.
And the question that Americans ought to ask is: how do we ever get those nuclear weapons out of that country without sending troops on the ground to go find them and get them out of the country?
He hasn't answered this question among the many he hasn't answered, as he's put Americans at risk in that theater.
Six Americans, service members, have been killed in this unauthorized conflict.
And what the President said, sadly, there are likely be more before it ends, reflects a disturbing indifference to the lives of our troops.
The President's campaign on America First, criticized prior administrations for foreign entanglements.
Instead, he's dragged us toward another potentially endless war in the Middle East.
This is the true cost of war.
And what happens after we wreck it?
What replaces the regime that's there now?
Will there be a civil war?
Will we have a failed state?
What will be the implications of that failed state in a region that's already fraught?
This is not planning, but it's recklessness to a very serious degree and demands that Congress take up its constitutional responsibilities.
Innocent civilians, including children, have died in strikes supported by this administration.
They had no stake in this conflict, and more, sadly, will be killed in this conflict by U.S. and Israeli airstrikes and indeed actions taken by the remnants of the Iranian regime.
Congressional Responsibility00:10:55
House Republicans have failed to exercise their constitutional duty as a check on the executive branch.
And indeed, that article is in the Constitution because the founders saw capricious kings sending their countries to war, depleting their economies, destroying the lives of the people in their country, often for vainglorious reasons.
That's why the Constitution says that the people of this country shall have a say about whether war will be conducted by the United States because of history.
This is an administration who never reads a history book, it seems to me, which is part of the reason why we're here now.
So this week, the House will vote on H. Con Res 38, the bipartisan Khanna-Massey Iran War Powers Resolution, which affirms Congress's constitutional authority and directs the President to remove U.S. forces from unauthorized hostilities against Iran.
I will be voting in favor of this resolution and will continue working with my colleagues and other others who have sworn allegiance to our Constitution and right to defend what's right in our country.
Thank you.
Thank you to all my colleagues.
Thank you all for being here.
Thank you to Vote Vets for your partnership on this and a lot of other critical initiatives.
We're happy to take questions.
Obviously, if folks need to head out, please do.
Your leadership has volunteered you all to be united on this war powers vote.
Like there are some Democrats, Representative Frank Lansman is one of them who plans to do this right.
What is your message to other colleagues who may be on the fence right now and who want to show a strength on this National Security Front and what we did before we call this?
I'll quickly answer and if anybody else wants to jump in.
This is the least partisan issue that we should have to deal with.
This is not about party.
It's about do you believe in the Constitution and that the voice of the people of the United States decide if we go to war or not rather than, as Mr. Conway just said, a capricious king.
That's what this is about.
We're not going to entertain partisan-framed questions.
This is about every member of Congress.
Frankly, whether you agree or disagree with the war itself, saying the American people have a say and that that is outlined very explicitly both in the Constitution and in Section 2C of the War Powers Act, which the Constitution passed and overrode the vote of the president at the time.
That's what this resolution reasserts.
I think what you have to realize is that, like I said, this is the least debated prolonged war in American history.
And therefore, the more debate that we have in Congress, the better we are as an institution.
So there are a number of war powers resolutions from Mr. Meeks, Mr. Gonheimer, and of course the Representative and Republican Thomas Massey's war powers resolution that we're going to be voting yes for tomorrow.
So my attitude is the more resolutions we have, at least that allows us to do our job in Congress and actually debate what we should be talking about, and that's a conflict in our eye.
Many of us, whether in Congress or otherwise, have spoken out against wars in a bunch of different capacities, certainly myself, regardless of administrations.
I was very critical of the Biden administration and their handling of Afghanistan.
And I think others can answer for themselves.
One key difference here, agree or disagree with the decision itself, all of those operations were conducted under an authorization for the use of military force, voted on by the Congress, and ultimately at least involving some level, as colleagues have said, of small D Democratic debate and consultation with the American people.
We're going to keep moving on.
Secretary Rubio and key congressional allies, including Speaker Johnson and Senator Tom Cotton, the chair of the Intelligence Committee, have said that the reason that America decided to attack Iran is because Israel was going to do it first.
Why is this administration basing their foreign policy based on the impulses of another foreign government?
I mean, Secretary Rubio has changed his story about 12 times in the last 24 hours.
It's clear they're either lying or confused or some combination thereof.
That's part of what we're all saying here is this is a decision, most importantly, to protect the American people and to be guided by the voices of the American people.
This is an administration that ran on ending wars and America first, and this is the exact opposite.
And I think that quote certainly very, very bluntly shows that.
Anyone else want to speak to that?
I'd just say, look, there's mass confusion with this administration.
You know, Secretary Hegseth has also said that this wasn't about regime change, but yet the president said he had a list of people that they were looking to replace once they took out the Ayatollah.
So what it comes down to is they do not really know why they did this.
This is all about Trump's personal vendettas or whatever it may be, because like he said, if we're going to get the, I got him before he's going to get me.
The thing is, we need to make sure the American people have a say and they haven't had a say, and that's why we need to debate this, as my colleagues have said.
Any commentary specifically on Israel, though?
I think, you know, look, we need the United States needs to worry about the United States and our national security.
And you're right.
Other nations should not be dictating what we do to defend our country.
This is not about Israel.
This is about President Trump refusing to go into Iran.
Let's make that clear.
Okay, and you need to realize the burden that our Israeli partners are actually shouldering at this point going into this.
When you talk about who's going to get out the nuclear capacity that they have right now, if we're not putting boots on the ground, it's going to be them.
So I think you need to realize that this is a shared burden, but when it comes down to getting into this, it's all about President Trump.
Thank you, Laurie.
Thank you.
Earlier from the Kennedy Connector, Secretary Jackson made a couple of comments about the UK.
It's a reaction soon.
We're playing for Kates.
Our rules of engagement are low, sufficient, defined.
I'm recently after how we're not shapping it.
And lastly, this was never meant to be a fair fight, and it's not a fair fight.
We're punching the mother now, which is exactly how it should be.
I want to get your reaction to those comments about Senator Terry.
I mean, I think all of us have been from day one very outspoken of what we think of Secretary Hagseth.
He's a joke.
It's like an avatar where he thinks if he just talks tough, that makes up for his complete lack of any plan, any strategy, any understanding of what the hell is going on.
And that seems to be another rambling of, you know, quotes that have nothing to do with answering the questions.
The fact that the Pentagon has completely shut down their press room and kicked out major reputable, the most reputable and accomplished outlets and instead filled it with a bunch of sycophants, including an actual participant in January 6th is now part of that press room.
It's because they don't want to answer the hard questions.
And when they get asked any hard questions, they give these bizarre, incoherent bumper sticker, tough guy things that, I mean, imagine looking the families of those six in the eye and saying that kind of BS.
He's a joke.
I wanted to get your thoughts on the resolution of Representative Gothimer, which would give the administration another 30 days strikes.
Is that in contradiction with this resolution that you're going to be voting on this week?
The vote this week is on this resolution.
I'll speak for myself.
I'm a yes on that.
I personally think, of course, we need to consider protecting troops in any withdrawal, and it needs to be done responsibly.
And obviously, that would happen.
And so I personally don't think we need that additional time, but happy to look at that resolution.
I don't know if anybody else wants to speak to it.
Kevin?
I've seen Senator Todd Young who's going to be voting bill on this over there on the Senate side, so it's very unlikely that the funds are going to be there to get them to the capitalists.
Which one?
The...
The, the, we're talking about the Senate.
Oh, okay.
Senator Kaine's resolution.
Yes, sir.
Yeah.
If it ultimately is a failure on the Senate side and potentially on the House side, one, does that potentially set up a situation where Trump does even more voting?
And two, what are your next steps?
To be very clear, I'm still optimistic that a few Republicans will actually read the Constitution and find their spine and vote to pass this in a bipartisan way, in addition to Mr. Massey.
And that's what we're all pushing for over the next 24 hours.
And Every American, please push and call your representatives to that effect.
So, really not willing to concede that.
If, though, in a hypothetical situation, I mean, if the administration felt so strongly about their case to do this strike, then they could have come to the Congress, as has been done throughout time, and either asked for a declaration of war or asked for an AUMF, an authorization for the use of military force, as was done post-9-11, as was done in 2002 ahead of Iraq,
and at least have that debate and let that play out.
And when we asked them whether they would do that, they wouldn't answer that in the briefing last night.
So, anything else either you guys want to say on that?
I'll just say, look, the president has to get the authorization of Congress, right?
He does not have the ability to act alone.
And that is part of the problem here.
And that's why we're fighting.
That's why we're against this, is because he, like my colleague just said, right, he needs to come.
If he is so beholden and feels so strongly about this, then they should have asked for permission.
But the way this president thinks is that he can just go about and act on his own, that he's a commander-in-chief, that that gives him the authority to go out and conduct war just as if he was a king.
Feel Free to Debate00:02:09
And that is not our system of government.
And that's why we need to continue to push back.
I think we'll call it there.
At least I can be happy to stand around and take individual questions, but in the interest of time and climate, we'll get everybody out of here.
So thank you all very much for being here.
Tonight, C-SPAN is live in Austin, Texas, where James Tallarico, the Democratic nominee in the state's 2026 U.S. Senate race, will make a victory speech after winning the state's primary election.
Watch live here on C-SPAN beginning at 8 p.m. Eastern, online at cspan.org, and on our free video app, C-SPAN Now.
C-SPAN's Washington Journal, a live forum inviting you to discuss the latest issues in government, politics, and public policy from Washington, D.C. to across the country.
Coming up Thursday morning, we'll talk about U.S. and Israeli combat operations against Iran and congressional debate on an Iran war powers resolution.
First, with Nebraska Republican Congressman Don Bacon and Ohio Democratic Congressman Greg Lansman.
Also, the Wall Street Journal's Lara Seligman will talk about the latest developments in the Iran conflict.
C-SPAN's Washington Journal joined the conversation live at 7 Eastern Thursday morning on C-SPAN, C-SPAN Now, our free mobile app, or online at c-SPAN.org.
Congresswoman Pramilla Jayapal held a news conference to talk about the leadership of Homeland Security Secretary Christy Noam amid calls for the Secretary to be removed from her position.
Representative Jayapal was joined by several Minnesota residents and U.S. citizens who share their experiences being detained by immigration enforcement officials.
If anyone wants his hand on the line, please feel free.