Speaker Mike Johnson is mounting a full-court press to kill a bipartisan war powers resolution that would strip President Trump of authority to continue military operations in Iran, calling the effort "a frightening prospect" as a vote looms this week.

Reps. Ro Khanna, a California Democrat, and Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican, plan to force the House to vote on a resolution requiring congressional authorization before Trump can use military force against Iran again. A source told The Hill the measure is expected to reach the floor on Thursday.

Johnson, speaking to reporters after a briefing on the operation Monday, made clear he intends to bury it.

"I think the idea that we would move a War Powers Act vote right now, I mean, it will be forced to the floor, but the idea that we would take the ability of our commander in chief, the president, take his authority away right now to finish this job, is a frightening prospect to me."

The case for letting the commander in chief finish the job

The U.S. and Israel launched joint strikes against Iran on Saturday after weeks of threats from Trump, who had called for regime change in Tehran. On Monday morning, Trump told CNN the "big wave" of the operation is yet to come and offered a timeline for the campaign's conclusion.

"I don't want to see it go on too long. I always thought it would be four weeks. And we're a little ahead of schedule."

Johnson's argument is straightforward: this isn't a declaration of war. The strikes are defensive. The intelligence was sensitive. And briefing the full Congress before acting would have risked compromising the operation. He noted that the bipartisan Gang of Eight was briefed in detail earlier this week that military action may become necessary to protect American troops and American citizens in Iran.

"It's not a declaration of war. It's not something that the president was required, because it's defensive in nature and in design and in necessity, to come to Congress and get a vote first. And if they had briefed a larger group than the Gang of Eight, you know, there's a real threat that that very sensitive intelligence that we had, you know, might have been leaked or something."

The leak concern is not hypothetical. Congress has a well-documented history of sensitive information finding its way to reporters before the ink dries on a classified briefing. Johnson's point lands because it reflects an institutional reality that members of both parties know but rarely admit.

Johnson said he believes the votes exist to defeat the resolution and called the outcome essential.

"It's dangerous, and I am certainly hopeful, and I believe we do have the votes to put it down. That's going to be a good thing for the country and our security and stability."

The strange bedfellows pushing back

The Khanna-Massie alliance is the kind of left-right coalition that periodically surfaces on war powers questions. Massie, a libertarian-leaning Republican, framed his opposition in explicitly populist terms on X.

"I am opposed to this War. This is not 'America First.' When Congress reconvenes, I will work with @RepRoKhanna to force a Congressional vote on war with Iran."

Massie's second argument is procedural rather than strategic: that the Constitution requires a vote, and that every representative "needs to be on record as opposing or supporting this war." There's a principled case for congressional accountability embedded in that position. The question is whether this is the right moment to make it, with an active military operation underway and a president who has outlined both a timeline and an endgame.

Forcing a vote mid-operation doesn't strengthen congressional authority. It signals division to Tehran at the worst possible time. Whatever the abstract merits of the war powers debate, timing is not a minor detail when American service members are in the field.

Jeffries discovers non-interventionism

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries urged lawmakers to support the resolution, arguing Monday on CNN that Trump needs to be constrained.

"There's nowhere in the United States Constitution where it says that we are to be the policemen and women of the world. I mean, that's the reality. Yes, we are the the leaders of the free world at this particular point in time, but there's a role for the United States to play in terms of diplomacy, building coalitions, and none of that was done in this particular instance."

The words sound almost conservative. Jeffries invoking constitutional limits on military action, questioning America's role as global policeman, championing diplomacy over force. It's the kind of rhetoric you might hear from the non-interventionist right on any given Tuesday.

Except Jeffries and his caucus had no such constitutional epiphany when previous administrations launched strikes without congressional authorization. The principle only seems to activate when a Republican occupies the White House. Constitutional concerns that appear and vanish depending on party affiliation aren't principles. They're tactics.

The vote math

As of last week, the Khanna-Massie measure appeared unlikely to pass. At least two Democrats, Reps. Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey and Jared Moskowitz of Florida, both close allies of Israel, initially expressed opposition to the resolution. It is unclear where they stand now in the wake of the strikes.

That ambiguity matters. Saturday's operation changed the political calculus. Some members who opposed the resolution when it was theoretical may feel differently now that bombs have fallen. Others who supported Israel's security interests may see the joint strikes as validation of the approach and hold firm against the resolution.

Johnson's confidence suggests the whip count favors the administration. If he's right, the resolution dies Thursday, and the president continues the operation with congressional acquiescence, if not formal authorization.

What's actually at stake

The war powers debate is as old as the republic, and it won't be settled on Thursday. Every president since the War Powers Act was passed in 1973 has chafed against it. Every Congress has selectively invoked it. The pattern is bipartisan and decades deep.

But the specific question before the House this week is narrower than the constitutional principle: Should Congress, in the middle of an active joint military operation with Israel against Iran's nuclear regime, vote to yank the commander in chief's authority to see it through?

Johnson framed the stakes in the plainest terms available. The president had sensitive, timely, urgent intelligence. He acted on it. The Gang of Eight was briefed. The operation is ahead of schedule.

"So, this is why the commander in chief of our armed forces has the latitude that any commander in chief, any president always has, because they have a set of information that is sensitive, timely and urgent, and they have to be able to act upon it. They did that."

Thursday's vote won't resolve the constitutional tension between the executive and legislative branches on war powers. But it will tell us something simpler: whether Congress has the resolve to let a military operation succeed before demanding the right to second-guess it.