Rep. Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican, announced Monday that he would not advance a war-powers bill aimed at restricting U.S. involvement in the Israel-Iran conflict if an apparent ceasefire, reportedly announced by President Donald Trump, holds. In a statement to reporters, Massie emphasized his conditional withdrawal, stating that the outcome of the ceasefire would determine the fate of the measure.
Speaker Mike Johnson, the House majority leader, separately told reporters that the measure is now ‘moot’ in light of the ceasefire announcement and has no chance of passing regardless of its status. Johnson called on Mass, ‘to do right by the country and do right by the Republican team here,’ implying that withdrawing the measure is in the broader interest of the party. However, Johnson also remarked on Massie’s apparent alignment with the opposing team, noting that ‘he plays almost every day on the other team, and that’s a deep regret.’
Massie is the sole Republican sponsor of the bill, which has received broad support from Democratic representatives, including Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), the lead Democrat on the bill. Khanna expressed that the focus is not on political points but rather on reasserting Congress’ role and preventing wars of choice with potentially catastrophic outcomes. Khanna noted the need to avoid escalation but indicated he would comment further after speaking with Massie.
Massie’s stance has placed him at odds with Trump, who has publicly criticized him on social media following U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. Trump has threatened to support a primary challenge against Massie, though Massie has largely dismissed the threat. In his remarks, Massie highlighted a surge in fundraising, having raised over $120,000 in the last 24 hours, and suggested that Trump’s threats may ultimately backfire as the primary season approaches.
The situation reflects a complex interplay between legislative strategy and political dynamics within the Republican party, with Massie’s actions highlighting the tension between individual representatives and the broader party interests. As the situation unfolds, the potential implications for U.S. foreign policy and congressional oversight remain under close scrutiny.