Speaker Johnson challenges constitutionality of the War Powers Act

 June 27, 2025

Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) just dropped a constitutional bombshell by calling the War Powers Act flat-out unlawful.

The Hill reported that Johnson’s bold stance comes on the heels of President Trump’s recent strikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities, sparking a fierce debate over whether Congress should rein in the president’s military authority, despite bipartisan pressure to do just that.

On Tuesday, Johnson made waves by declaring the 1973 War Powers Act—a law meant to curb a president’s ability to wage war without Congressional nod—unconstitutional.

He argued it clashes with the Founding Fathers’ vision for the commander in chief’s powers under Article II. That’s a direct jab at decades of precedent, and it’s got both sides of the aisle buzzing.

Johnson Rejects Congressional Oversight Push

Following Trump’s weekend strikes on Iranian targets, Johnson flat-out refused to entertain a vote on a bipartisan resolution to limit military action. His reasoning? He’s not about to second-guess the president’s authority, no matter how loud the calls grow for Congressional approval.

Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) are spearheading a resolution to force Trump to halt Pentagon operations against Tehran without Congress’s green light. Massie even threatened to push a vote if the risk of further strikes persists. It’s a rare cross-party alliance, but Johnson isn’t budging.

Meanwhile, three Democrats—Reps. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.), Adam Smith (D-Wash.), and Jim Himes (D-Conn.)—rolled out their resolution on Monday to pull U.S. forces from Iran absent Congressional sanction.

“President Trump must not be allowed to start a war with Iran, or any country, without Congressional approval,” they declared in unison. Noble, perhaps, but Johnson sees this as a tired rerun of overreach.

Johnson doubled down, citing “respected constitutional experts” who back his view that the War Powers Act violates presidential powers. “I think that’s right,” he said, aligning himself with a strict interpretation of executive authority. This isn’t just policy—it’s a fundamental clash over who calls the shots in wartime.

Democrats aren’t buying it, though some admit their own party’s presidents—like Biden, Obama, and Clinton—have launched strikes in places like Syria, Yemen, Libya, and Bosnia without Congressional blessing.

Johnson pointed this out, noting, “Every one of those actions was taken unilaterally.” Hypocrisy much? He’s got a point, even if it stings.

Still, Democrats like Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) push back, insisting, “I believe Trump needs congressional authorization to strike Iran.” Fair enough, but where was this energy when their leaders played fast and loose with the rules? Consistency isn’t exactly Washington’s strong suit.

Historical Precedent or Convenient Excuse?

Johnson leaned on history to defend his inaction, arguing that the president, as commander in chief, holds the ultimate power to act on the nation’s behalf. “The last few days have unfolded exactly as the law outlines, and as history has demonstrated,” he claimed. It’s a slick way to frame Trump’s moves as business as usual.

Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) countered that unless the nation is directly attacked, “the president should have come to Congress.”

Her critique lands with some weight, but Johnson’s camp might argue that waiting for debate while threats loom isn’t exactly practical. The tension here is palpable.

Johnson’s broader defense is simple: “The bottom line is the commander in chief is the president.” He’s not wrong that the Constitution grants significant leeway to the executive in military matters. But does that mean Congress should just sit back and watch?

The bipartisan push for oversight isn’t just a progressive talking point—even conservatives like Massie are on board, which shows how serious the concern is.

Yet Johnson’s refusal to check Trump’s actions in Iran signals a deeper loyalty to executive power over legislative balance. It’s a gamble that could reshape how we handle conflict.

Democrats acknowledge past missteps by their leaders but argue those errors shouldn’t justify Trump’s unchecked moves. It’s a reasonable plea for accountability, yet Johnson’s historical examples make their case look a tad selective. This debate isn’t ending anytime soon.

Copyright 2025 Patriot Mom Digest