White House rejects claims of war with Iran after strikes, defends notifications to lawmakers as Democrats call for oversight.

Debate Erupts Over Definition of War After Strikes on Iran

The Biden administration faces escalating criticism from prominent Democrats, several Republicans, and national media outlets claiming the United States has entered a war with Iran following President Donald Trump’s targeted military strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. B-2 bombers and submarines attacked sites at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan in what the White House called Operation Midnight Hammer. The New York Times and others quickly framed the strikes as the U.S. entering war, while critics on social media and in Congress called the action unconstitutional and grounds for impeachment.

Columnists and lawmakers accused Trump of violating the Constitution and pushing the country into a new Middle East conflict. Senator Chris Van Hollen labeled the decision a violation of congressional war powers, while Senator Elizabeth Warren called it a “horrific war of choice.” Senators Tim Kaine and Bernie Sanders both demanded a war powers resolution vote, and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries argued the risk of war had “dramatically increased.” Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez stated that bombing Iran without congressional authorization constituted “grounds for impeachment.”

Administration Denies ‘Act of War,’ Emphasizes Limited Scope

The White House has pushed back on these assertions, insisting that the strikes were limited to Iran’s nuclear program and not a declaration of war. Vice President JD Vance stated, “We’re not at war with Iran, we’re at war with Iran’s nuclear program. We want peace, but we want peace in the context of them not having a nuclear weapons program.” Secretary of State and National Security Advisor Marco Rubio echoed this, emphasizing that the U.S. is prepared for diplomacy and awaiting Iran’s response.

“What happens next will depend on what Iran chooses to do next. If they choose the path of diplomacy, we’re ready,” Rubio said on CBS’ Face the Nation. The strikes came after failed negotiations regarding Iran’s nuclear activity. The administration insists that the attacks were precise, limited, and designed to eliminate a specific threat rather than to escalate into broader conflict.

White House Disputes Reporting, Affirms Lawmaker Notifications

Adding to the controversy, the White House has called out media outlets for reports suggesting top Democratic leaders were not briefed ahead of the strikes. Press secretary Karoline Leavitt labeled a CNN story “fake news,” stating that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries were contacted prior to the operation, although Jeffries was briefed only after the strikes due to availability. “The White House made bipartisan courtesy calls to Congressional Leadership and spoke to @SenSchumer before the strike. @RepJeffries could not be reached until after, but he was briefed. @CNN please retract,” Leavitt wrote on X.

Both Schumer and Jeffries released statements over the weekend condemning Trump for not seeking congressional authorization, but neither claimed they were left uninformed before the strike. Schumer continued to urge the enforcement of the War Powers Act, arguing that “no president should be allowed to unilaterally march this nation into something as consequential as war.”

Future Uncertain Amid Political and Legal Debate

While the administration maintains that it has not initiated war and stands ready for diplomacy, critics in Congress are calling for formal debate and oversight over future military action. The strikes on Iran have reignited discussions about the constitutional limits of presidential power, the role of Congress in authorizing the use of force, and the definition of war in an era of rapid, targeted military operations. As lawmakers demand clarity and accountability, the path forward remains uncertain, with the possibility of further resolutions, hearings, and debate in the weeks ahead.