House Speaker Mike Johnson rejects bipartisan measure to restrict further strikes on Iran

Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) just threw a wrench into a bipartisan effort to rein in military moves against Iran without Congress giving the green light.

Here’s the quick rundown: Johnson voiced strong opposition to a resolution that would block U.S. armed forces from engaging in Iran unless lawmakers approve, a stance that aligns with President Donald Trump’s recent strikes on Iranian nuclear sites, while tensions skyrocketed after Iran’s failed counterattack, as The Hill reports.

This saga kicked off when Reps. Thomas Massie (R-KY) and Ro Khanna (D-CA) introduced their war powers resolution, aiming to keep the executive branch in check by demanding congressional authorization for any military action in Iran.

Strikes, retaliation raise temperature

Fast forward to the weekend, when the U.S. targeted three Iranian nuclear facilities, a move that sent shockwaves through the international community and predictably drew a response from Tehran.

Iran hit back with an attempted strike on a U.S. air base in Qatar, but thanks to Qatari defenses, the attack was stopped cold — turns out actions do have consequences, even if they don’t land.

Reactions split hard along party lines, with most Republicans cheering the president’s decision as a bold check on Iran’s nuclear ambitions, while Democrats cried foul, calling it unauthorized and even unconstitutional.

Johnson stands firm for executive power

Enter Johnson, who, after a classified briefing, doubled down on his support for the president, arguing that the commander in chief acted within his rights to protect American interests.

“The president made an evaluation that the danger was imminent enough to take his authority as commander in chief,” Johnson declared, framing the strikes as a necessary flex of executive muscle.

Now, let’s unpack that — while some might see this as a dangerous overreach, Johnson’s point about imminent threats isn’t just empty rhetoric; it’s a reminder that leadership sometimes means making the tough calls without waiting for a committee to agree.

Bipartisan push faces uphill battle

Meanwhile, Massie and Khanna’s resolution isn’t dead yet, boasting a solid 57 cosponsors and the procedural power to force a floor vote even without Johnson’s blessing.

Massie didn’t mince words, stating, “This is not Constitutional,” in reference to the strikes, a jab that cuts deep for those of us who value checks and balances over unchecked power.

But here’s the rub — while Massie’s passion for congressional oversight is admirable, one has to wonder if tying the president’s hands mid-crisis is the wisest play when American lives and assets are on the line.

Impeachment whispers, party divides

On the other side, scores of Democrats have labeled the strikes as grounds for serious consequences, with Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Sean Casten (D-IL) even floated the idea of impeachment.

Johnson wasn’t having it, dismissing such talk as “absolute nonsense,” a sharp but fair retort to what many conservatives see as political theater rather than principled critique.

Look, disagreements over policy are one thing, but escalating to impeachment over a national security decision feels like using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut — let’s debate the merits without turning every dispute into a constitutional crisis.