House 5 questions on Iran as the House returns to Washington by Mike Lillis - 03/04/26 6:00 AM ET by Mike Lillis - 03/04/26 6:00 AM ET Share ✕ LinkedIn LinkedIn Email Email NOW PLAYING House lawmakers returned to Washington on Tuesday to confront the Iran conflict and joust over Congress’s role, or lack thereof, in governing the terms of the fight. President Trump launched the Iran operations with a hail of strikes early Saturday, after weeks of threats and a massive buildup of military power in the surrounding region. But the administration has struggled to articulate a number of details related to the campaign, including the rationale behind it; the expected duration of the operations; and the objectives — near and long term — that drove the decision.   Republicans have rallied behind the president, saying he’s acting solely in the interests of national security. But the attack has infuriated Democrats, who have long sought to reassert Congress’s role as the sole authority when it comes to declaring war. A pair of congressional briefings by top Trump officials on Tuesday seemed only to aggravate the Democratic concerns and fuel their push for legislation to curb Trump’s military powers. Democrats have been joined in their criticisms by a small but vocal group of conservative Republicans and MAGA loyalists, who were drawn to Trump’s campaign promise to end “forever wars” in the Middle East and now fear he might have started one. Here are five questions hanging over Congress as the House returns to Capitol Hill. What will Congress do?  Even before the strikes, Democrats were pushing a war powers resolution designed to limit Trump’s unilateral authority to conduct military operations in Iran. Saturday’s attack has added a new urgency to that effort,  solidifying Democratic support  for the measure just as it’s expected to hit the floor this week.  Sponsored by Reps. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), the resolution is no longer relevant for its initial purpose, which was to preempt Trump from attacking Tehran without explicit congressional approval. But supporters, including the Democratic brass, are pushing ahead nonetheless, saying Congress still retains the power to halt the attacks until the administration can justify them. “Every member of Congress needs to go on record,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) told reporters Tuesday in the Capitol. Supporters have a tough road to passing the resolution.  While two Republicans — Massie and Rep. Warren Davidson (Ohio) — say they’ll support the measure, at least two Democrats — Reps. Josh Gottheimer (N.J.) and Jared Moskowitz (Fla.) — are vowing to oppose it. That sets the stage for the measure to fail in a chamber where GOP leaders are warning against tying Trump’s hands amid the fight. “The idea that we would take the ability of our commander in chief, the president, take his authority away right now to finish this job, is a frightening prospect to me,” Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) told reporters Monday. The debate took a twist Tuesday, when six Democrats, including Gottheimer and Moskowitz, introduced an alternative war powers resolution that would give the administration a 30-day window to wind down operations or come to Congress for approval.  Still, Democratic leaders say they remain focused on the Khanna-Massie resolution, which is set to hit the floor Thursday, and they’re pushing every one of their members to get on board.  “We’ll continue to make the strongest possible case,” Jeffries said.  Another funding fight coming? With the war powers resolution facing long odds, Democrats are also eyeing another strategy for curbing Trump’s military designs in Iran: the power of the purse.  Several Democratic senators are already forecasting a willingness to use their filibuster powers in the upper chamber to deny Trump additional funding for the Iran campaign. And the idea is likely to have plenty of support in the more liberal House. “When the bill comes to pay for the replenishment of interceptors and munitions the middle eastern countries that we have been protecting need to pay for it,” Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.)  posted this week on the social platform X. “We aren’t cutting more Medicaid, food stamps for protecting these countries in a war of choice and not in our interest.” That fight, in a typical year, wouldn’t play out until the next Pentagon funding deadline, on Sept. 30. But the timeline could be condensed considerably if the Iran fight drags on, weapons are depleted, and Trump comes to Congress asking for more funding to continue the campaign. Indeed, the possibility of a supplemental defense spending bill is already under discussion at the highest levels