Libertarian-minded Republicans like Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky blasted Trump's decision to launch strikes. | AP Photo Trump's Syria strikes divide Congress — but not along partisan lines

President Donald Trump’s missile attacks against the Syrian government on Thursday night split Congress into several camps, winning bipartisan backing from some senior lawmakers while also sparking a coalition of those on the left and right who raised constitutional concerns.

Congressional leaders in both parties largely signaled their support. House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) called Trump’s strikes “appropriate and just" and said he looks "forward to the administration further engaging Congress in this effort."


Top Democrats, like House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) also offered their support, but both made clear they believed any escalation would require the approval of Congress.

“Tonight’s strike in Syria appears to be a proportional response to the regime’s use of chemical weapons," Pelosi said, but added, “The crisis in Syria will not be resolved by one night of airstrikes." Durbin said “any further action will require close scrutiny by Congress, and any escalation beyond airstrikes or missile strikes will require engaging the American people in that decision."

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said, “Making sure Assad knows that when he commits such despicable atrocities he will pay a price is the right thing to do.” The New York Democrat added, though, that “it is incumbent on the Trump administration to come up with a strategy and consult with Congress before implementing it.”

Meanwhile, libertarian-minded Republicans like Sens. Mike Lee of Utah and Rand Paul of Kentucky blasted Trump's decision to launch strikes without first getting approval by Congress.

“The President needs congressional authorization for military action as required by the Constitution,” Paul said in a Tweet.

They were joined by liberal Democrats, including Sen. Brian Schatz of Hawaii and Rep. Ted Lieu of California, who also argued the use of force requires congressional approval under the Constitution.

Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), who was the lone member of Congress to vote against the 2001 war authorization against Al Qaeda, called the strikes an “act of war” and said Congress needs to come back into session and debate the matter. Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) called Trump's failure to seek congressional authorization "unlawful."

On the other side were Republican defense hawks, who offered full-throated praise for Trump’s decision — including Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, two of Trump’s fiercest GOP critics on other issues.

“Unlike the previous administration, President Trump confronted a pivotal moment in Syria and took action,” McCain and Graham said in a joint statement. “For that, he deserves the support of the American people.”

Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, another GOP defense hawk who has sometimes been critical of Trump, also issued a statement of support.

“By acting decisively against the very facility from which Assad launched his murderous chemical weapons attack, President Trump has made it clear to Assad and those who empower him that the days of committing war crimes with impunity are over,” Rubio said.

Congress and the White House have long been at odds over the president’s constitutional war powers.

Both the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were authorized by Congress. But President Barack Obama did not seek congressional authorization for the 2011 military intervention in Libya.

Sign up here for POLITICO Huddle A daily play-by-play of congressional news in your inbox. Email Sign Up By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Obama did seek authorization in 2013 for strikes against the Assad regime in Syria, though he maintained he had the power to order strikes without such an authorization.

Ultimately, Congress never acted on a resolution against the Syrian government amid significant opposition, and Obama did not launch strikes, instead pursuing diplomatic avenues for removing chemical weapons from Syria.

Many Republicans may find themselves in an awkward spot Friday as they justify their support for Trump's missile strike after suggesting similar actions by the Obama administration would be unconstitutional.

U.S. launches airstrikes in Syria

Stalwart Trump ally Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), along with more than 100 colleagues, signed a 2013 letter that sharply warned Obama against a unilateral attack. "Engaging our military in Syria when no direct threat to the United States exists and without prior congressional authorization would violate the separation of powers that is clearly delineated in the Constitution," they wrote.

Other GOP signatories included Rep. Lynn Jenkins of Kansas, who applauded Trump as "decisive," and Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina, who commended Trump for his "swift action." A slew of other Republicans who praised Trump — including Don Young of Alaska, Martha Roby of Alabama, Roger Williams of Texas — opposed or leaned heavily against Obama's request to authorize the use of force in Syria while heaping praise on Trump Thursday night.

The Congressional Research Service addressed the issue of war powers in a report last month, noting that “in the post-Cold War world, presidents have continued to commit U.S. armed forces into potential hostilities, sometimes without a specific authorization from Congress.”

“It is generally agreed that the Commander-in-Chief role gives the President power to utilize the armed forces to repel attacks against the United States,” CRS said in its report. “But there has long been controversy over whether he is constitutionally authorized to send forces into hostile situations abroad without a declaration of war or other congressional authorization.”

The U.S. military has been conducting airstrikes in Syria since 2014, but these have been aimed at the Islamic State. The Obama and Trump administrations have cited as their legal justification for these strikes the authorization for use of military force passed by Congress after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Thursday’s strike was the first U.S. military action targeting the Bashar Assad regime in Syria, which Trump cast as retaliation for Assad’s most recent chemical attack on his own people.

“Tonight I ordered a targeted military strike on the airfield in Syria from where the chemical attack was launched,” Trump said Thursday. “It is in this vital national security interest of the United States to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons.”

Elana Schor, Seung Min Kim and Heather Caygle contributed to this report.



Members of Congress react to air strikes against Assad forces in Syria The United States launched air strikes against the Syrian regime of Bashar Assad on Thursday. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Minority Leader Chuck Schemer, Sen. Marco Rubio, Sen. Tim Kaine, and Sen. John McCain react to the U.S. missile strike.