Congressional Leaders React to Trump Ordering Strike Attack on Iran

Congressional leaders reacted to Trump’s announcement of U.S. strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites, with Republicans generally supporting the action and Democrats questioning its legality. The divide highlights broader concerns regarding presidential war powers. Prominent figures expressed varying opinions, with discussions on the need for legislative action ongoing.

Congressional leaders voiced their reactions Saturday night following President Donald Trump’s surprise announcement that he had ordered a U.S. strike on three Iranian nuclear sites. While some Republicans cheered the decision, others, particularly Democrats, raised concerns about the president’s authority to act without Congressional approval.

Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican from South Carolina and known supporter of Israel, quickly praised Trump’s decision on X, saying it was “the right call.” He remarked, “The regime deserves it. Well done, President @realDonaldTrump,” adding a note of pride in the U.S. Air Force’s capabilities.

Conversely, Senator Bernie Sanders expressed his alarm at Trump’s announcement while addressing a crowd in Tulsa, Oklahoma. After reading Trump’s post on the strikes, he noted the audience’s disapproval, acknowledging their booing. “It is so grossly unconstitutional. All of you know that the only entity that can take this country to war is the U.S. Congress. The president does not have the right,” Sanders emphasized.

In other reactions, Representative Rick Crawford, a Republican from Arizona and chair of the House Intelligence Committee, stated he had been in contact with the president and was monitoring developments closely. “I regret that Iran has brought the world to this point. That said, I am thankful President Trump understood that the red line was real,” he said in a statement.

However, some Republicans questioned the legality of Trump’s actions. Representative Tom Massie of Kentucky argued, “This is not constitutional,” highlighting concerns about the president’s power to initiate military strikes without Congressional input.

Representative Jim Himes, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, also voiced concern, asserting, “According to the Constitution we are both sworn to defend… my attention to this matter comes BEFORE bombs fall. Full stop.” Meanwhile, Democratic Representative Ro Khanna urged a return to Washington to vote on a War Powers Resolution aimed at preventing further military engagement in the Middle East.

House Speaker Mike Johnson received a briefing from the administration prior to the strikes. He had planned a trip to Israel for a meeting with the Knesset, but that was canceled due to the intensified conflict. In his statement, Johnson endorsed Trump’s actions, declaring it a “decisive” step against terrorism.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune was also briefed on the situation beforehand. GOP Senator John Barrasso tweeted his support, stating, “President @realDonaldTrump’s decision to strike Iran’s nuclear program is the right one. The greatest threat to the safety of the United States and the world is Iran with a nuclear weapon. God Bless our troops.” Texas Senator John Cornyn echoed similar sentiments, commending Trump for what he called a courageous decision.

Meanwhile, Pennsylvania Senator John Fetterman expressed agreement with Trump’s move, stating, “This was the correct move by @POTUS. Iran is the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism and cannot have nuclear capabilities.”

As this story develops, it will undoubtedly continue to stoke debate within Congress about presidential powers and military engagement.

President Trump’s sudden order for strikes against Iranian nuclear sites has sparked a range of reactions from Congressional leaders. While many Republicans lauded the decision as a strong and necessary action, Democrats raised significant concerns about its constitutionality and lack of Congressional approval. As the situation evolves, lawmakers are debating the implications of the president’s actions and the potential need for legislative oversight regarding military engagements.

Original Source: abcnews.go.com