Bernie Sanders Attacks Trump After Iran War Escalation

As tensions escalate in the Middle East and President Donald Trump weighs military action against Iran, Senator Bernie Sanders is leading a constitutional charge on Capitol Hill. Bernie Sanders late Monday led the introduction of a bill that would prevent the Trump administration from using federal funds for a military attack on Iran without explicit authorization from Congress, marking a critical moment in America's ongoing debate over executive war powers.

The Vermont independent's "No War Against Iran Act" comes as Trump has already authorized strikes on 3 nuclear sites in Iran, dramatically escalating a conflict that began with Israeli operations against Iranian-backed forces. This unprecedented military action has thrust the constitutional question of war powers into the national spotlight, with lawmakers from both parties questioning whether Trump has overstepped his executive authority.

The Constitutional Standoff

Sanders' legislation cuts to the heart of America's founding principles: who has the power to commit the nation to war? "Only the Congress has the constitutional power to declare war, and President Trump must not drag us further into this conflict without Congressional approval," said Senator Chris Van Hollen, a key supporter of the measure.

The bill specifically prohibits the use of federal funds for military force against Iran without congressional authorization, with exceptions only for acts of self-defense. This approach mirrors similar efforts during previous administrations, but takes on new urgency as Trump has done something he had long vowed to avoid - intervene militarily in a major foreign war.

Sanders isn't acting alone. The measure has attracted bipartisan attention, with both progressive Democrats and some Republicans expressing concern about the precedent being set. "No president has the authority to bomb another country that does not pose an imminent threat to the US without the approval of Congress. This is an unambiguous impeachable offense," declared one House Democrat, reflecting the intensity of the constitutional debate.

The Escalation That Sparked the Response

The current crisis began with Israel's "Rising Lion" operation against Iranian positions, which Iran countered with missile strikes of its own. As the conflict escalated, Trump faced mounting pressure to intervene militarily to support Israel. A total of 24 people have been killed in Israel since the conflict began last week, adding urgency to calls for American involvement.

Trump initially appeared cautious, telling reporters he would allow two weeks for diplomacy to proceed before deciding whether to launch a strike in Iran. However, that restraint proved short-lived. The president ultimately authorized strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, including the sensitive Fordow site, marking a fateful threshold by attacking Tehran's nuclear program.

The strikes represent a major departure from Trump's previous rhetoric about avoiding Middle Eastern conflicts, and have fundamentally altered the regional security landscape.

Congressional Response Gains Momentum

Sanders' effort is part of a broader congressional pushback against unilateral executive action on Iran. Senator Tim Kaine has introduced his own war powers resolution, while House members from both parties are preparing similar measures. The challenge for these lawmakers lies in the political mathematics: Four Republicans would need to vote for Kaine's resolution for it to pass if every Democrat — along with Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) and Angus King (I-Maine) — supports it.

The legislative response reflects deeper concerns about America's approach to foreign conflicts. "Another war in the Middle East could cost countless" lives and resources, argue supporters of congressional authorization requirements. These lawmakers point to previous conflicts where initial military interventions expanded far beyond their original scope.

The War Powers Debate in 2025

The current standoff highlights the enduring tension between executive flexibility in foreign policy and congressional authority over war-making. Presidents of both parties have historically claimed broad powers to use military force for what they term defensive purposes or to protect American interests abroad. Congress, meanwhile, has struggled to assert its constitutional role in war declarations, particularly in an era of rapid military deployments and evolving threats.

Sanders' bill faces significant political obstacles in a Republican-controlled Congress that has generally supported Trump's foreign policy approach. Even as some polls find Trump supporters are against war with Iran, the passage of such bills in the Republican-controlled legislature remains unlikely. This reality underscores the complex politics surrounding war powers, where partisan loyalty often trumps constitutional principles.

Looking Ahead: Constitutional Crisis or Compromise?

The debate over Trump's Iran strikes extends beyond immediate military concerns to fundamental questions about American democracy and the separation of powers. Critics argue that allowing presidents to initiate major military conflicts without congressional approval sets a dangerous precedent that could lead to endless wars. Supporters contend that in an era of fast-moving threats, executive flexibility is essential for national security.

As Sanders and his allies push their legislation forward, they face the challenge of building bipartisan support for constitutional principles in an increasingly polarized political environment. The stakes could hardly be higher: how this debate resolves may determine not just America's approach to Iran, but the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches for years to come.

The question now facing lawmakers and the American public is whether the Constitution's war powers provisions remain relevant constraints on presidential authority, or whether they have become obsolete relics in an age of rapid military action and global commitments. Sanders' bill represents more than just opposition to war with Iran—it's a test of whether Congress still has the will to check executive power when it matters most.