Two Iowa Republicans join push to limit Trump's Iran war powers
Two Iowa Republicans voted with Democrats on Tuesday to advance a resolution restricting President Donald Trump's military authority in Iran, a move that highlights growing divisions within the GOP over the ongoing conflict.
Reps. Mariannette Miller-Meeks and Zach Nunn were among seven House Republicans who joined all 213 voting Democrats in approving the war powers resolution by a 220 to 204 vote. The measure, sponsored by Rep. Seth Moulton, D-Mass., seeks to constrain the president's ability to conduct military operations in Iran without congressional approval.
Which Republicans voted against Trump's Iran policy?
The seven Republicans who supported the resolution include Miller-Meeks and Nunn of Iowa, along with Nancy Mace of South Carolina, Tom Barrett of Michigan, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Warren Davidson of Ohio, and Thomas Massie of Kentucky.
Barrett, Fitzpatrick, Davidson, and Massie had previously supported similar measures. Miller-Meeks and Nunn joined the initiative for the first time, signaling a shift among some Iowa Republicans on the issue.
Fourteen Democratic House members co-sponsored the resolution, including Reps. Jason Crow of Colorado and Pramila Jayapal of Washington. But it was the Republican defections that proved decisive in securing passage.
What does the War Powers Resolution say?
The 1973 War Powers Resolution generally allows a president to commit U.S. armed forces to hostile operations for up to 60 days without congressional approval, with an additional 30-day withdrawal period under certain conditions.
Supporters of Tuesday's resolution argue that this authorized timeframe has already expired. They maintain that the Constitution grants the power to declare war to Congress, not the executive branch.
Rep. Tom Barrett of Michigan told Fox News Digital before the vote:
I've been consistent on that since the war powers provision expired after 60 days of engagement.
Trump administration defends military authority
The Trump administration has argued that the president is exercising his constitutional authority as commander in chief. Officials say the ongoing operation targeting Iran is necessary to protect U.S. forces and national security interests, and that the resolution would inappropriately limit the president's ability to respond to threats.
The White House has signaled that Trump would veto the measure if it reaches his desk. The Senate passed a similar resolution in June with multiple Republican defections, but the two chambers would need to pass identical legislation to send it to the president.
Iran conflict becomes midterm election issue
The Iran conflict has emerged as a contentious issue in the current midterm election cycle, dividing Republicans while giving Democrats an opportunity to characterize Trump's actions as another prolonged military engagement.
Several lawmakers and policy analysts have linked the escalating conflict to rising fuel costs at retail gasoline stations, an economic concern expected to significantly influence voter preferences.
The situation has also prompted Rep. Thomas Massie, a prominent opponent of Trump's international military commitments, to initiate proceedings aimed at compelling a vote on the impeachment of Secretary of War Pete Hegseth.
Despite these challenges, the majority of House Republicans continue to support the president, maintaining that his actions fall within the scope of his constitutional authority.
What this means for Iowa
The votes by Miller-Meeks and Nunn place two Iowa Republicans at the center of a national debate over presidential war powers. Both lawmakers have generally supported Trump's agenda, making their decision to back the resolution notable.
Iowa voters will have the opportunity to weigh in on the issue in the upcoming midterm elections, where the Iran conflict and its economic impact are expected to be key topics.
The resolution now moves forward in the legislative process, though its ultimate fate remains uncertain given the president's stated opposition and the likelihood of a veto.