After the American president ordered, on January 3, a raid in Venezuela, without consulting or informing in advance the American Congress, which in principle has control in matters of armed conflicts abroad, American elected officials fear not having their say on a possible military operation against Iran.

Published on: 02/20/2026 - 7:38 p.m. Modified on: 02/21/2026 - 10:14 a.m.

American parliamentarians are feverishly awaiting their president's next move. Donald Trump gave himself "ten days" on Thursday to decide whether an agreement with Iran is possible.

After the tenant of the White House ordered the kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro on January 3, without consulting or informing in advance the American Congress, which in principle has control in matters of armed conflicts abroad, American elected officials complain that the Trump administration leaves them once again "in the dark". “I would like to be able to say that I was briefed, but I know nothing about it! If not informing the leaders of Congress is a strategy, it is a mistake,” lamented, on February 19, Mark Warner, vice-chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

See also Agreement or force: Trump gives himself “ten days” to make a decision on Iran

The most interventionist American senators, for their part, have no problem asserting that they have the ear of the president, they are not better informed. Thus, the Republican senator from Texas, Ted Cruz, boasted on Fox News, on February 18, of having urged the President of the United States two days before "not to let this opportunity pass." "The Ayatollah regularly chants 'Death to America'. Seeing the mullahs' regime overthrown would be a considerable step forward for the Iranian people, for the Middle East, and above all a considerable improvement for the national security of the United States," he added.

Bellicose statements echoed by the words of Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, known to be a hawk. “It’s time to make a choice. I choose the Iranian people rather than the murderous Ayatollah. It’s time for him to go,” said the South Carolina senator, for whom it is not, however, up to the United States to “rebuild Iran.” “It is my job to give them the opportunity to build a new Iran,” he also said.

"Congress must decide on the war"

This cry from the neoconservatives cannot, however, hide the unease that reigns among elected Democrats, but also Republicans. Two representatives, California Democrat Ro Khanna and Kentucky Republican Thomas Massie, jointly expressed opposition to any military action against Iran.

On February 19, they announced they would try to force a vote next week on a resolution requiring congressional authorization before the United States can intervene against Iran. "Congress must vote on war in accordance with our Constitution. Rep. Ro Khanna and I will ensure that this vote takes place in the House as soon as possible," Thomas Massie said on X. "I will vote to put America first, and that means voting against another war in the Middle East."

Although the vote on this resolution aimed at restricting the president's powers should be close, it has little chance of obtaining a majority. While the 214 elected Democrats are expected to adopt this symbolic resolution, none of the 218 elected Republicans in the House have declared their intention to support it, with the exception of Thomas Massie. The Republican representative from Nebraska, Don Bacon, declared that he intended to vote against this text, even though he had supported a resolution aimed at prohibiting the president from using the American army in Venezuela, narrowly rejected by the House on January 22.

In fact, Republican elected officials defending an isolationist line, opposed to any external intervention, are remaining discreet. If during the twelve-day war, between Israel and Iran from June 13 to 24, 2025, the Republican representative of Tennessee Tim Burchett had dared to declare that "the Republicans who push for conflict with Iran are 'war pimps'", he has remained silent since. Ditto for Josh Hawley, Republican senator from Missouri, a fervent supporter of Israel, who said: “I don’t want us to go to war. I don’t want another war in the Middle East.”

Also read: Iran-Israel: the story of 12 days of open war

Death threats against opponents of the war

The few elected officials who spoke out against the lone rider of the White House are exposed to reprisals, even death threats. Former Navy attack plane pilot, then astronaut, Democratic Senator from Arizona Mark Kelly urged in a video published in November 2025, the American military to refuse illegal orders. After Donald Trump denounced "seditious behavior, punishable by death", the elected official had to take legal action in the United States to prevent the Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, from reducing his military rank and his senator's pension. After winning his case on February 12, the Democratic senator immediately warned that "the use of force against Iran would have negative consequences", criticizing Donald Trump, "a guy", according to him, "incapable of surrounding himself with the right people, of obtaining the right information and of making informed decisions on anything".

According to Jamie Raskin, Democratic leader of the House Judiciary Committee, the options available to his caucus to counter Trump are limited: "We are doing everything we can to hold our ground in committees and subcommittees and in the House, but being in the minority obviously leaves us with fewer legislative tools than we would like," he said, adding that the Democratic caucus has joined dozens of lawsuits against the administration. The American Democratic representative is especially concerned that "once the legislative powers are dissolved, it will be very difficult to regain control of the presidential powers that have become uncontrollable."

Legislative power disarmed

While Donald Trump does not hide his disdain for Congress, which has a tendency, according to him, "to leak things", the question arises as to whether the country's main legislative body still constitutes a counter-power. “What we have observed over the past year represents a real escalation on the part of the executive branch in its interference in areas that historically fall under the jurisdiction of Congress,” deciphers Molly Reynolds, director of governance studies at the Brookings Institution, a non-partisan think tank. The political scientist notes that Trump attacked the legislative power, seeking to take away from legislators their powers to control spending, agencies and declare war, to appropriate them.

As proof, the American military interventions carried out in seven countries in 2025 in Venezuela, Nigeria, Somalia, Yemen, Syria, Iraq and Iran were carried out, for the most part, without the approval of Congress. Condemned to watch as spectators the raid on Venezuela in early January, American parliamentarians already expect to be kept in the dark in the event of an intervention in Iran.

Keywords associated with the article

The content you are trying to access does not exist or is no longer available.