WASHINGTON — Republican lawmakers said Tuesday after classified briefings on Capitol Hill they don’t intend to limit President Donald Trump’s ability to continue the war in Iran, though some said sending in ground troops would be a step too far. 

Democrats argued that military and administration officials shared no clear objectives or exit strategy for the war, making debate and a vote in Congress more important. 

“When there is no set plan … you end up with an endless war, you end up with mission creep, you end up with all kinds of problems,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said. “What’s really needed is a public debate so the American people, who already are very much against this, can see what we have seen.” 

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said during an afternoon press conference before the briefing that he doesn’t believe Congress needs to declare or authorize the war.  

“No, I think the president has the authority that he needs to conduct the activities and the operations that are currently underway there,” he said. “As you know, there’s a lot of controversy around, questions around the War Powers Act. But I think the president is acting in the best interest of the nation and our national security interests by ensuring that he’s protecting Americans and American bases and installations in that region, as well as those of our allies.”

Lawmakers received closed-door briefings from Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Central Intelligence Agency Director John Ratcliffe.

Tim Kaine, Rand Paul push war powers vote

The Senate is expected to vote Wednesday on a War Powers Resolution co-sponsored by Virginia Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine and Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul that would direct the administration “to remove the United States Armed Forces from hostilities within or against Iran, unless explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or a specific authorization for use of military force.” 

The House will vote later this week, likely Thursday, on a similar proposal from Kentucky Republican Rep. Thomas Massie and California Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna. Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., has said that effort doesn’t have the support to take effect. 

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker, R-Miss., said as he was walking out of the afternoon briefing that the Trump administration will not rule out boots on the ground. 

Wicker said he doesn’t believe Congress would need to authorize U.S. troops in Iran, though he declined to answer a question about why he thinks the president holds the authority for a ground war not approved by lawmakers. 

A report from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service notes that while Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war, that authority “has been heavily debated.” 

“The Supreme Court has observed that only Congress has the power to declare war, but the implications of this exclusive assignment are not well-settled,” the report says. “In particular, the relationship between Congress’s power to declare war and the President’s war powers granted under Article II of the Constitution is the subject of significant disagreement.”

‘This is a massive operation and rapidly changing’

Louisiana Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy said he doesn’t “think the American people want to see troops on the ground. I don’t think that’s the case. And although they left open that possibility, it seems not to be something they’re emphasizing.”

Missouri Republican Sen. Josh Hawley said he believes Congress would need to authorize U.S. troops on the ground in Iran, something he’s unlikely to support. 

“I find it difficult to imagine a scenario where I would,” he said. 

Hawley said the classified briefing left the impression the Trump administration’s war in Iran will continue for some time. 

“I think there’ll be a lot more to come, because one of the things I took away from this is, this is a massive operation and rapidly changing,” he said. 

Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski said it “was an important briefing that we had today and it is a situation that is clearly evolving rapidly.”

North Dakota Republican Sen. John Hoeven declined to answer a question about whether he would support Trump sending U.S. troops into Iran. 

“Well, again, that’s an option, and if and when it would occur, we could deal with it at that point,” he said. “But I think at this point, there’s no indication of that.”

Oklahoma Republican Sen. Markwayne Mullin said that Hegseth is “not going to limit any options to the president” when asked about the possibility of U.S. troops on the ground in Iran.

Mullin described the role Congress plays in authorizing the administration’s offensive in Iran as “debatable.”

“We’re not going to take away the authority of the president of the United States to be able to be the commander-in-chief. … We don’t need 535 commanders,” Mullin said.

Lindsey Graham ‘never felt better about how this ends’

Arizona Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly, a retired Navy captain, said the level of interceptor stockpiles is a “big concern.”

“We do not have an unlimited supply and the Iranians do have the ability to make a lot of Shahed drones, ballistic missiles, medium-range, short-range. And they’ve got a huge stockpile,” Kelly said. “So at some point, we’re probably already in this, this becomes a math problem. And how can we resupply air defense munitions? Where are they going to come from? How does that affect other theaters?”

The Trump administration pulling from the Indo-Pacific Command, for example, Kelly said, would leave troops in that region of the world “more vulnerable.”

“We don’t have an unlimited supply. They’re shooting a lot of stuff,” he said. “Certainly, the number has gone down somewhat over time. But the math on this currently seems to be an issue.”

Senate Appropriations Committee ranking member Patty Murray, D-Wash., said the administration has yet to ask Congress to provide additional funding for the war. 

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., exited the briefing saying he “never felt better about how this ends.”

Graham said he spoke with Arab leaders by phone earlier in the day and “they’re going to get in the fight in a more direct way.”

Graham also spoke directly to the cameras, in case Trump was watching, he said, to encourage the president to join Israel in bombing Iranian-backed Hezbollah fighters in Lebanon.

“Not only take the mothership of Iran down, also take the proxy of Hezbollah. Settle the score,” Graham said.

Mike Johnson defends Trump constitutional authority

Johnson said Trump took advantage of “a narrow and unique opportunity” to attack Iran over the weekend, and that he was “well within his constitutional authority to do what he has done.”

“We had counsel from the (Department of Justice) here tonight, who said very well, very clearly — fell just short of citing the specific case law — but explained that this has been the tradition for decades.”

Johnson said the U.S. joint war with Israel in Iran has been “very effective thus far” and described the proposed War Powers Resolution as “dangerous.”

The U.S. mission in Iran “needs to be completed,” he said. “We don’t need Congress getting in the way of that.”

Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., who sits on the House Armed Services Committee, said she is a “no for now” on the Wars Powers Resolution vote later this week.

“But if this thing goes beyond a few weeks, I’m going to have a lot more concerns,” Mace said, adding that boots on the ground “would be a very different conversation.”

“That’s not where we are today. That’s not what I heard in the briefing,” Mace said, declining to provide more details from the classified meeting. “I feel very good and very confident about where we are roughly just over 100 hours into the strikes in this conflict.”

WASHINGTON — A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction Thursday, blocking the Department of Defense from downgrading Arizona Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly’s rank as a retired Navy captain for appearing in a video where he and other lawmakers reminded members of the military they aren’t required to follow illegal orders. 

Senior Judge Richard J. Leon of the District of Columbia District Court wrote in the 29-page ruling that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and others named in the lawsuit have “trampled on Senator Kelly’s First Amendment freedoms and threatened the constitutional liberties of millions of military retirees.”

In his scathing opinion loaded with emphasis and exclamation points, Leon wrote, “After all, as Bob Dylan famously said, ‘You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.’ To say the least, our retired veterans deserve more respect from their Government, and our Constitution demands they receive it!” 

The senior judge ruled that Kelly is likely to succeed on the merits of his case. The preliminary injunction will block Pentagon action while the case proceeds through the courts.

 

 

Leon conceded that while active military personnel are subject to “well-established doctrine” limiting First Amendment rights, “(u)fortunately for Secretary Hegseth, no court has ever extended those principles to retired servicemembers, much less a retired servicemember serving in Congress and exercising oversight responsibility over the military.” 

“This Court will not be the first to do so!”

Leon was nominated by former President George W. Bush.

Leon concluded the ruling with a biting passage suggesting that “Rather than trying to shrink the First Amendment liberties of retired servicemembers, Secretary Hegseth and his fellow Defendants might reflect and be grateful for the wisdom and expertise that retired servicemembers have brought to public discussions and debate on military matters in our Nation over the past 250 years.” 

“If so, they will more fully appreciate why the Founding Fathers made free speech the first Amendment in the Bill of Rights! Hopefully this injunction will in some small way help bring about a course correction in the Defense Department’s approach to these issues,” Leon wrote.

‘This case was never just about me’

Kelly said in a lengthy statement following the ruling that the federal court “made clear that Pete Hegseth violated the constitution when he tried to punish me for something I said.” 

“But this case was never just about me. This administration was sending a message to millions of retired veterans that they too can be censured or demoted just for speaking out. That’s why I couldn’t let it stand,” Kelly said.

Kelly said the nation is at a “critical moment” to defend free speech.

“The First Amendment is a foundation of our democracy. It’s how we demand better of presidents like Donald Trump – whether they are jacking up the cost of groceries with tariffs or sending masked immigration agents to intimidate American communities.  

  “But Donald Trump and his administration don’t like accountability. They don’t like when journalists report on the consequences of their policies. They don’t like when retired veterans question them. And they don’t like when millions of everyday Americans peacefully protest. That’s why they are cracking down on our rights and trying to make examples out of anyone they can.”

The Department of Defense pointed to Hegseth’s X account as official comment on the matter.

The secretary wrote about the case: “This will be immediately appealed. Sedition is sedition, ‘Captain.’”

DOD investigation

Kelly, Michigan Sen. Elissa Slotkin, Colorado Rep. Jason Crow, Pennsylvania Reps. Chris Deluzio and Chrissy Houlahan and New Hampshire Rep. Maggie Goodlander, all Democrats with backgrounds in the military or national security, posted the video on Nov. 18

President Donald Trump reacted on social media a few days later, falsely claiming the video represented “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!”

The Defense Department announced on Nov. 24 that it had opened an investigation into “serious allegations of misconduct” against Kelly. Officials wrote the senator could face “recall to active duty for court-martial proceedings or administrative measures.” 

Hegseth wrote in a social media post on Jan. 5 that he had started the process to downgrade Kelly’s retirement rank as a Navy captain and his pay. 

Hegseth wrote Kelly’s “status as a sitting United States Senator does not exempt him from accountability, and further violations could result in further action.”

Kelly filed a lawsuit against the Department of Defense and Hegseth on Jan. 12, asking a federal judge to declare the effort “unlawful and unconstitutional.”

“Pete Hegseth is coming after what I earned through my twenty-five years of military service, in violation of my rights as an American, as a retired veteran, and as a United States Senator whose job is to hold him—and this or any administration—accountable,” Kelly wrote in a statement at the time. “His unconstitutional crusade against me sends a chilling message to every retired member of the military: if you speak out and say something that the President or Secretary of Defense doesn’t like, you will be censured, threatened with demotion, or even prosecuted.”

Court hearing

Leon held a hearing on Kelly’s request for a preliminary injunction on Feb. 3, where he asked the attorney representing the Department of Defense how any retired member of the military who is later elected as a member of Congress, especially one that sits on the Armed Services Committee, like Kelly does, could challenge any actions taken by the Defense Department. 

John Bailey, the Justice Department attorney, contended that Congress has determined that certain retired military members are still subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. 

Benjamin Mizer, one of the lawyers on Kelly’s team, told the judge the Defense Department’s actions represented a “clear First Amendment violation.” 

Grand jury non-indictment

The other Democratic lawmakers in the video aren’t subject to the military’s judicial system but rebuked the Justice Department Wednesday for seeking a grand jury indictment against them for publishing the video, where they told Americans in the military and intelligence communities they “can” and “must refuse illegal orders.”

“No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution. We know this is hard and that it’s a difficult time to be a public servant,” they said. “But whether you’re serving in the CIA, in the Army, or Navy, or the Air Force, your vigilance is critical.”

Slotkin, a former CIA officer, posted a video on Feb. 5, saying she had informed U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi and U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro that she wouldn’t be sitting for an interview. 

Slotkin said her letter to Bondi and Pirro also told them “to retain their records on this case in case I decide to sue for infringement of my constitutional rights.”

“To be honest, many lawyers told me to just be quiet, keep my head down and hopefully this will all just go away. But that’s exactly what the Trump administration and Jeanine Pirro want,” Slotkin said. “They are purposely using physical and legal intimidation to get me to shut up. But more importantly they’re using that intimidation to deter others from speaking out against their administration.

“The intimidation is the point and I’m not going to go along with that.”

House members 

Houlahan released her own video the same day saying she would not sit for an FBI interview and that the Democrats’ video “told the truth, it stated facts, it reiterated the law and it exercised speech explicitly protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.” 

“Free speech is not a favor that the government can revoke,” Houlahan said. “It is a right and I will not surrender it, for myself or for anyone else.” 

Deluzio wrote in a social media post the following day that he would “not be intimidated by any harassment campaign” and does “not intend to sit down for a voluntary interview with DOJ or FBI officials sent to interfere with the important work I’m doing for my constituents.”

Goodlander wrote in a statement that the “Justice Department is targeting us for doing our jobs, and the aim here is clear: to intimidate, coerce, and silence us. It will not work. I will not bend the knee in the face of lawless threats and rank weaponization — I will keep doing my job and upholding my oath to our Constitution.”

Crow told CNN’s Pamela Brown last week that he was treating the FBI’s investigation as “an attempt to try to threaten, harass and intimidate political opponents.”

“(Trump’s) trying to make an example out of me and Mark Kelly and others because if he can make an example out of a member of Congress or a senator then why would everyday Americans stand up and protest and dissent? But he has chosen the wrong people.”