1. United States
2. Iowa
3. Letter

Thank you for your response regarding Iran. After reviewing your letter carefully, my concern has deepened — not only about Iran policy, but about Congress’s continued surrender of its constitutional authority to the Executive Branch. You state that the United States “is not at war with Iran,” yet on June 21, 2025, the United States conducted direct military strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. Launching military attacks on the sovereign territory of another nation is the use of armed force. Whether labeled “war” or not, it is precisely the type of action the Constitution requires Congress to authorize. Article I, Section 8 grants Congress — not the President — the authority to declare war. The War Powers Resolution requires notification within 48 hours, but notification is not authorization. Receiving a report after bombs have already fallen does not fulfill Congress’s constitutional role. What is especially troubling is that Republicans in Congress continue to cede power to the Executive by declining to assert that authority. When members accept unilateral military action because it comes from a president of their own party, they weaken the legislative branch itself. That erosion will not disappear when party control changes. It sets a precedent. President Donald Trump has exercised executive authority in sweeping, unilateral terms — issuing ultimatums, conducting strikes, and declaring outcomes as settled fact without independent verification. Congress is not meant to function as a passive recipient of after-the-fact briefings while the Executive governs like a corporate CEO making unilateral decisions in matters of war. Several specific claims made by the administration warrant scrutiny: The President declared that Iran’s nuclear facilities were “completely and totally obliterated.” That is a definitive military assessment. Unless independently verified by the International Atomic Energy Agency or supported by declassified U.S. intelligence, it remains a political assertion presented as fact. Early battlefield claims are often overstated. If facilities were merely damaged or rebuildable, the American people were misled about the strike’s effectiveness. The administration insists the U.S. is “not at war,” while simultaneously conducting direct strikes and threatening further attacks. Redefining armed conflict to avoid congressional authorization is semantic maneuvering, not constitutional compliance. The President has framed the “maximum pressure” campaign as successful. Yet after U.S. withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Iran increased uranium enrichment and reduced inspection transparency. If enrichment advanced and tensions escalated, describing the strategy as a clear success is, at minimum, misleading. Statements such as “10 days to two weeks” create the appearance of imminent decisive action but function as shifting pressure tactics. Repeated ultimatums that evolve or go unenforced erode credibility. The administration portrays diplomacy as ongoing while simultaneously escalating militarily. Coercive escalation fundamentally alters negotiations, and presenting both as steady diplomacy obscures that reality. Finally, prior claims that sanctions relief under the JCPOA amounted to “giving Iran billions” mischaracterized the policy. Much of that relief involved access to Iran’s own frozen assets. Framing it as a U.S. payment distorted public understanding. You criticize the JCPOA as weak, yet the IAEA repeatedly certified Iranian compliance prior to U.S. withdrawal. After withdrawal, enrichment levels rose. Whether one supported the deal or not, abandoning an inspection framework without a congressionally authorized alternative contributed to today’s instability. If Congress does not demand explicit authorization before the use of force, require independent verification of executive claims, and assert its Article I authority, it is voluntarily diminishing its own constitutional role. This is not about partisan loyalty. It is about institutional responsibility. If Republicans in Congress continue to defer to expanded executive war powers when exercised by a Republican president, they entrench precedents that will empower future presidents of either party to bypass Congress altogether. I ask directly: Was there explicit congressional authorization for the June 2025 strikes? If not, why did Congress not insist on a vote before the use of force? What independent verification supports the claim that Iran’s facilities were “completely and totally obliterated”? Will you support requiring explicit congressional authorization before any further escalation? The Constitution does not contemplate a presidency that unilaterally initiates hostilities while Congress confines itself to monitoring events.