Speaker Johnson says he hopes Israel-Iran ceasefire staves off war powers vote

House Speaker Mike Johnson said Tuesday that he hopes a “fragile but very real” ceasefire agreement between Israel and Iran, brokered by the U.S., will prevent lawmakers from forcing a vote on a war powers resolution. 

The ceasefire agreement, which President Trump announced on Monday, came two days after the U.S. bombed three of Iran’s nuclear facilities. Many lawmakers, primarily Democrats, argued the strikes were unconstitutional since the president didn’t seek congressional approval and there was no imminent threat to the U.S.

Before the weekend strikes, Reps. Thomas Massie, Kentucky Republican, and Ro Khanna, California Democrat, introduced a resolution to prohibit U.S. forces from engaging in hostilities against Iran without congressional approval. Sen. Tim Kaine, Virginia Democrat, introduced a similar measure in the upper chamber. 

The war powers resolutions are privileged, meaning the members who introduced them can force a floor vote against GOP leaders’ wishes.  

Mr. Johnson does object to holding the vote, but said, “I don’t have the power to stop a privileged resolution.”

The speaker said he spoke with Mr. Massie on Monday evening and argued that if the ceasefire agreement holds, his war powers resolution “is now a moot point.”

“And he said, ‘Yeah, probably is,’” Mr. Johnson said. “So we may not have to act upon that. I hope we don’t, because I think it would be a terrible look, and it will not pass because it’s inappropriate.”

Mr. Massie and Mr. Khanna appeared together on MSNBC Monday night and signaled they would hold off forcing a vote to see if the ceasefire holds. 

“We have to wait and see,” Mr. Khanna said. “If it doesn’t hold, then we’re ready to have a vote on the war power resolution.”

Mr. Massie said it wasn’t immediately clear whether the U.S. was a party to the ceasefire. 

“If it’s not, we’re going to have to push this through Congress,” he said of the war powers resolution. 

The top Democrats on the House Foreign Affairs, Armed Services and Intelligence committees introduced their own war powers resolution on Monday before the ceasefire deal was announced.

It’s unclear whether they will stand down on forcing a vote, given the ceasefire. 

Mr. Johnson has argued that Mr. Trump had clear constitutional authority as commander in chief to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities. The former constitutional lawyer said he agrees with experts who believe the War Powers Act is unconstitutional.

“The framers of our Constitution never intended for the president to seek the approval of Congress every time he exercises his constitutional authority under Article II, as commander in chief,” Mr. Johnson said. 

He quoted Alexander Hamilton’s writings in the Federalist Papers: “Energy in the executive is a leading character in the definition of good government. It is essential to the protection of the community against foreign attacks.” 

“This is why the framers did not explicitly set restrictions on the president when it comes to using military force,” Mr. Johnson said. 

“Exercising the authority to declare war isn’t something we’ve done since World War II,” he said. “Since then, we’ve had more than 125 military operations from Korea and Vietnam to Iraq and Afghanistan. They have occurred without a declaration of war by Congress. Presidents of both parties have exercised that authority frequently.”

Mr. Johnson lamented that he and Mr. Massie “never agree these days,” but he wouldn’t go as far as Mr. Trump, who is threatening to help support a primary challenger to the Kentucky congressman. 

The speaker said his role as the top House Republican is to protect incumbents and make sure his members get reelected, but he didn’t explicitly promise to defend Mr. Massie against a Trump-backed challenger. 

“I certainly understand the president’s frustration,” Mr. Johnson said. “If you’re here and you’re wearing one team’s jersey, and every single time you vote with the other team, people begin to question what your motive is and what your philosophy is and why you’re so consistently opposed to the platform, the agenda of your party.”