Congress presses Trump to spell out exit strategy for Iran war

The pressure building in Washington is no longer confined to whether President Donald Trump can conduct the U.S.-Israel-led campaign against Iran under the War Powers Act. As lawmakers look at what they have said so far about the mission’s endgame, they are increasingly focusing on when the military operations will end and how Congress would be asked to authorize any continuation beyond the Act’s initial timetable.

Three weeks into the conflict, lawmakers are hearing the human and political costs in real time. The Associated Press reported that at least 13 U.S. military personnel have died and more than 230 have been wounded, while allies are under attack and thousands of U.S. troops are deploying to the Middle East amid concerns that there is “no endgame in sight.” A Pentagon request for $200 billion in additional war funds is pending at the White House, setting up a confrontation over both the war’s duration and the budget choices Congress may face if it is asked to approve more spending.

In remarks to the Associated Press, Sen. Thom Tillis said, “The real question is: What ultimately are we trying to accomplish?” Tillis said he “generally support[s] anything that takes out the mullahs,” but argued that the administration still needs what he described as “a kind of strategic articulation of the strategy, what our objectives are.” The comments reflect a strain lawmakers say is intensifying: even Republicans who have backed the commander in chief’s actions are asking for more detail about goals and sequencing as the war stretches further.

Trump, in turn, said late Friday that he was considering “winding down” military operations while outlining new objectives and goals. That combination drew sharp reaction from Democrats, including Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, who told the AP that Trump’s quip about ending the war “when I feel it in my bones” was “crazy.” Warner said the administration has to do more than suggest an end point without tying it to a defined strategy.

Even as Republicans remain reluctant to directly challenge Trump, House Speaker Mike Johnson said the administration’s original mission is close to completion. Johnson told the AP and others at the Capitol that he thinks “the original mission is virtually accomplished now,” saying the objectives included taking out ballistic missiles, their “means of production,” and neutralizing the navy. But he also acknowledged that Iran’s ability to threaten ships in the Strait of Hormuz is “dragging it out a little bit,” especially after allies largely rebuffed Trump’s request for help.

Lawmakers say the administration’s stated goals also have raised questions because they can appear to shift. Warner said “Regime change? Not likely. Get rid of the enriched uranium? Not without boots on the ground,” arguing that the public case for the war has not been made clearly enough. He added that, if advising the president, he would have said: “Before you take on a war of choice, make the case clear to the American people what our goals are.”

Beyond questions of endgame, Congress is also weighing the power of the purse as the Pentagon seeks new money. The Associated Press reported that the Defense Department told the White House it is seeking an additional $200 billion for the war effort, and said the amount is unlikely to win support. Sen. Chuck Schumer, the Senate Democratic leader, called the figure “preposterous,” while Sen. Mazie Hirono argued that the country has other priorities and pointed to cuts tied to last year’s Republican tax reductions affecting Medicaid and SNAP.

Hirono said the focus should be on “not taking away funding for Medicaid, which will impact millions of people” and on making sure “SNAP is funded,” framing the domestic costs against the scale of the war request. Her remarks underscored how lawmakers view the timing: as they consider any new spending for the military effort, they also are being pushed toward choices that could affect services for Americans already facing financial strain.

Some lawmakers, including Tillis, said Trump has latitude under the War Powers Act early on, but that the political and legal timeline will soon narrow. Tillis told the AP that when the conflict reaches the “45-day mark,” lawmakers expect the administration to begin either seeking an authorization for continued use of military force or offering “a very clear path on exit.” He said those are “really the options the administration needs to be thinking about,” as Congress prepares for more consequential wartime votes.