Representative Scott DesJarlais of Tennessee on Monday defended President Donald Trump’s authority to conduct military operations in Iran following a congressional rejection of a war powers resolution designed to restrict the president’s ability to continue the conflict.
The House recently defeated the measure in a 219-212 vote after the Senate similarly rejected it days earlier, leaving Trump with broad discretion to proceed with U.S. military actions against Iran.
Speaking on a recent television program, DesJarlais, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, asserted that the president has historically held the authority to carry out such missions without a formal declaration of war from Congress.
“The precedent’s been set,” DesJarlais stated. “We have not declared war in Congress since 1942. The president has the authority to conduct these types of missions. And so I don’t know why the Democrats have chosen to pick on President Trump.”
DesJarlais cited past military actions by presidents from both major parties as precedent, including former President Barack Obama’s 2011 operations in Libya and the support then-Senator Chuck Schumer of New York received for that intervention.
“When President Obama went into Libya,” DesJarlais said, “that was not a short-term action. As I think Chuck Schumer tried to say, it lasted about seven months. And so this is something that presidents have used—almost every time a president has been in office.”
Congress has rarely formally declared war in modern history, instead permitting presidents to rely on authorizations or inherent commander-in-chief powers for military operations.
The debate has intensified as U.S. and Israeli forces continue strikes against Iran in a regional conflict under scrutiny from lawmakers concerned about congressional oversight and the potential for prolonged hostilities.
Democrats have repeatedly sought votes under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which allows Congress to compel the president to end military engagements unless authorized by lawmakers.
DesJarlais characterized the ongoing push for such votes as politically motivated.
“I think they’re afraid that Trump can be successful,” he said. “We’ve definitely degraded Iran’s abilities and capabilities. And if Trump is successful in the Middle East and we get a friendly leader in Iran that will work with us without projecting evil or supporting their proxies, the Abraham Accords could become reality.”
He added that such an outcome would carry significant political implications.
“If all those things were successful,” DesJarlais said, “President Trump probably would receive a Nobel Peace Prize. And that certainly would bother the Democrats going into the midterm elections.”
While expressing optimism about the campaign’s prospects, the congressman acknowledged the operation could take time.
“I think it could take several weeks,” DesJarlais noted. “I hope it doesn’t turn into several months.”
He argued U.S. and allied air superiority could accelerate the initiative.
“Having air superiority makes a huge difference,” he said. “Now we can use our older bombers, our workhorses—the B-52s and B-1s—to strike their weapons depots.”
DesJarlais also stated that Iran’s missile and drone capabilities had already been weakened.
“But they have a formidable army that’s obviously still willing to fight,” he said. “And I think with the air power between us and the Israelis, we’ll continue to pound them into submission—hopefully sooner than later.”
The congressional votes underscored the growing divide in Washington over the scope of presidential war powers, particularly as the Iran conflict raises concerns about a longer and costlier regional war.
Supporters of the president argue that restricting the commander-in-chief during active operations could undermine U.S. strategy, while critics maintain Congress must assert its constitutional authority to declare war.
For DesJarlais and many Republicans, the issue remains clear.
“The president has the authority to conduct these types of missions,” he stated.
