Congress looks for Trump’s exit plan as the Iran war drags on

As U.S. war with Iran enters fourth week, Congress questions strategy and costs

President Donald Trump’s decision to launch military operations against Iran without congressional approval has sparked growing concern on Capitol Hill, as lawmakers increasingly demand clarity on the conflict’s objectives, timeline, and mounting financial burden.

Three weeks into the U.S.-Israel-led war, the human and economic toll continues to climb. At least 13 American service members have lost their lives, with more than 230 wounded. The Pentagon is seeking an additional $200 billion in war funding, a request currently awaiting White House approval. Meanwhile, U.S. allies face attacks, global oil prices are spiking, and thousands of American troops continue deploying to the Middle East with no clear endgame in sight.

“The real question is: What ultimately are we trying to accomplish?” asked Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) in an interview with The Associated Press. “I generally support anything that takes out the mullahs. But at the end of the day, there has to be a kind of strategic articulation of the strategy, what our objectives are.”

Despite voicing support for “winding down” military operations late Friday, President Trump simultaneously outlined new objectives, further blurring the mission’s parameters and endpoint.

The conflict presents a significant test for the Republican-controlled Congress, which has largely stood by the president’s decisions thus far. Under the War Powers Act, the president can conduct military operations for 60 days without congressional approval. Republicans have consistently voted down Democratic resolutions aimed at halting the campaign, but lawmakers from both parties indicate the administration must present a more comprehensive strategy to maintain congressional backing.

Trump’s recent comment that the war will end “when I feel it in my bones” has drawn sharp criticism from lawmakers like Senator Mark Warner (D-Va.), the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, who called the remark “crazy.”

Despite growing concerns, Republican leadership appears hesitant to directly challenge the president. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has expressed optimism about a swift conclusion to the conflict.

“I do think the original mission is virtually accomplished now,” Johnson told reporters at the Capitol. “We were trying to take out the ballistic missiles, and their means of production, and neuter the navy, and those objectives have been met.”

Johnson acknowledged that Iran’s continued threats to shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, a critical global oil chokepoint, have prolonged the conflict, especially as U.S. allies have largely declined to join the military effort. “As soon as we bring some calm to the situation, I think it’s all but done,” he added.

However, many lawmakers find the administration’s stated objectives—including preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons and degrading its ballistic missile capabilities—increasingly confusing and potentially unattainable.

“Regime change? Not likely. Get rid of the enriched uranium? Not without boots on the ground,” Warner observed. “If I’m advising the president, I would have said: Before you take on a war of choice, make the case clear to the American people what our goals are.”

The Pentagon’s $200 billion funding request has encountered significant resistance, with Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) dismissing the figure as “preposterous.” The Defense Department already operates with an annual budget exceeding $800 billion, recently supplemented by an additional $150 billion in funding over several years from Trump’s tax legislation.

Senator Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) questioned the war spending priorities, noting: “How about not taking away funding for Medicaid, which will impact millions of people. How about making sure SNAP is funded,” referencing health care and food assistance programs that faced cuts during last year’s Republican tax reductions. “These are things that we should be doing for the American people,” she emphasized.

Many lawmakers have drawn comparisons to President George W. Bush’s approach following the September 11, 2001 attacks, when he sought congressional authorization for military actions in Afghanistan and later Iraq.

Tillis noted that while Trump currently has authority under the War Powers Act, a critical juncture approaches: “When you get into the 45-day mark, you’ve got to start articulating one of two things—an authorization for the use of military force to sustain it beyond that or a very clear path on exit. Those are really the options the administration needs to be thinking about.”