By Leo Briceno
福克斯新闻
发布时间：2026年3月7日 美国东部时间凌晨4:00 | 更新时间：2026年3月7日 美国东部时间上午6:00
国会山就唐纳德·特朗普总统上周末对伊朗发动的打击是否引发了一场“战争”的辩论仍在激烈进行，这是总统是否必须寻求国会授权继续“史诗 Fury”行动的关键考量因素。
共和党人认为这是一次精心策划的攻击，旨在防止美国的对手获得核能力，而民主党人则认为这可能轻易演变为更广泛的冲突。
“宪法明确规定，国会不应成为事后的旁观者，”弗吉尼亚州民主党参议员蒂姆·凯恩告诉福克斯新闻数字频道。
凯恩将此次打击与1月份对尼古拉斯·马杜罗的抓捕行动进行了比较，他说：“特朗普总统并没有像在委内瑞拉那样说‘这是一次警察行动’，说这是‘一次逮捕’。”
像凯恩这样的民主党人抨击特朗普将美国拖入了一场在他们看来类似战争的冲突——而宣战权只属于国会。正是这种判断让他们认为立法者应该使用1973年《战争权力法》来限制特朗普在伊朗的权力。
该法律禁止总统在未经国会授权的情况下，对外国势力发动持续超过60天的敌对行动。
而像密苏里州共和党参议员乔希·霍利这样的共和党人则认为，鉴于当前冲突的范围，没有理由援引《战争权力法》。
周三，一项旨在推翻民主党领导的、旨在限制特朗普在伊朗军事行动的战争权力决议案在参议院以53-47的投票结果通过。
霍利说：“我的意思是，即使你对此有异议，我只是认为你不能否认他们在遵守法律条文。总统根据宪法第二条拥有采取这一行动的权力。”
上周六，美国与以色列合作对伊朗发动了一系列打击，目标是伊朗军方领导层，并杀死了该国最高领袖阿亚图拉·阿里·哈梅内伊。特朗普政府将此次袭击描述为阻止伊朗发展核武器的必要行动。
尽管霍利支持政府目前的行动，但他对冲突需要国会同意的界限有明确的红线。
霍利说：“地面部队将是另一回事。但（特朗普）刚刚表示，‘我们不会派遣地面部队’，所以我只是对我的民主党朋友说——我认为他们只是在寻找反对总统的理由。”
民主党人仍然不信服。
一些民主党人指出，政府使用的措辞表明他们认为这场冲突不仅仅是孤立的打击。
康涅狄格州民主党参议员理查德·布卢门撒尔说：“总统和国务卿称之为战争。将军们也是如此。如果我们处于战争状态，国会必须提供授权。”
其他民主党人，如弗吉尼亚州参议员马克·华纳，抨击了政府对此次袭击的理由。
华纳说：“美国不存在迫在眉睫的威胁。威胁的是以色列，但就迫在眉睫的威胁而言，不存在。因此，这是总统选择发动的战争。”
华纳补充道：“你必须先到国会来（寻求授权）。”
伊利诺伊州民主党参议员迪克·杜宾认为，考虑应该更少关注技术细节，而更多考虑特朗普的攻击可能带来的代价。
杜宾说：“美国人民决定是否参战，因为这是他们的子女可能会失去生命的问题。无论总统是谁，我仍然认为情况是这样的。”
Leo Briceno是福克斯新闻数字频道国会团队的政治记者。他曾在《世界杂志》担任记者。
Warner argues there was ‘no imminent threat to the United States’ while Hawley says ground troops would cross his red line
By Leo Briceno
Fox News
Published March 7, 2026 4:00am EST | Updated March 7, 2026 6:00am EST
Debate on Capitol Hill continues to rage over whether President Donald Trump started a “war” with the strikes he carried out against Iran last weekend, a key consideration for whether the president must look to Congress for authority to continue Operation Epic Fury.
Where Republicans see a narrowly-tailored attack designed to prevent a U.S. adversary from securing nuclear capabilities, Democrats see a conflict that could easily spill into a broader conflict.
“Congress is not supposed to be an after-the-fact spectator, the Constitution makes plain,” Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., told Fox News Digital.
“President Trump has not said, like in Venezuela, ‘this is a police operation,’ that it’s ‘an arrest,’” Kaine said, comparing the strikes to the January capture of Nicolás Maduro.
Democrats like Kaine have blasted Trump for dragging the U.S. into a conflict that, in their view, looks a lot like a war — something only Congress has the power to declare. It is that determination that makes them believe lawmakers should use the War Powers Act of 1973 to curb Trump’s powers in Iran.
That law prevents the president from continuing hostilities against a foreign power that extends past 60 days.
Republicans like Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., see no reason to invoke the War Powers Act, given the scope of the current conflict.
A measure to kill a Democrat-led war powers resolution aimed at handcuffing Trump’s military operations in Iran passed on Wednesday in a 53-47 Senate vote.
“I mean, even if you disagree with this, I just don’t think you can dispute [that] they’re complying with the statute. The president has the authority under Article II to do what he has done so far,” Hawley said, referring to the Constitution’s military power granted to the country’s commander in chief.
Last Saturday, the U.S. conducted a series of strikes in collaboration with Israel, targeting the country’s military leadership and killing the country’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The Trump administration has framed the attack as a necessary campaign to halt Iran’s work towards obtaining a nuclear weapon.
Although Hawley supports the administration’s work so far, he has a firm red line in mind for where the conflict would require Congressional say-so.
“Ground troops would be a different deal,” Hawley said. “But [Trump] just said, ‘We’re not going to do ground troops,’ so, I just say to my Democrat friends — I think they’re just looking for something to vote against the president on.”
Democrats remain unconvinced.
Some Democrats noted that the language the administration has used suggests it views the conflict as something more than isolated strikes.
“The president and the secretary of state have called it a war. So have the generals. If we’re at war, Congress has to provide authorization,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., said.
Other Democrats, like Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., attacked the administration’s stated reason for the attack.
“There was no imminent threat to the United States. There were threats to Israel, but in terms of an imminent threat, there was not one. Consequently, this is the president’s war of choice,” Warner said.
“You have to come before Congress,” Warner added.
To Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., the consideration should deal less with technicalities and more with consideration of the cost that could come with Trump’s attacks.
“The American people make the decision on going to war because it’s their sons and daughters that will lose their lives. I still think that’s the case, regardless of who the president might be,” Durbin said.
Leo Briceno is a politics reporter for the congressional team at Fox News Digital. He was previously a reporter with World Magazine.
发表回复