WASHINGTON >> President Donald Trump’s decision to strike Iran without congressional authorization and little consultation has divided Congress and deepened rifts inside both parties, touching off a searing debate over the role of the military and how much power the legislative branch should wield over the use of American forces.

Some leading Democrats have reacted with outrage at Trump’s unilateral authorization, calling it an unconstitutional overstepping of his authority and demanding a briefing and a swift vote on whether to approve any further military action in Iran. Top Republicans, who have rushed to cede congressional power to the president at the start of his term, have called the strikes on Iran justified and appropriate, arguing that Congress should have no say in the matter.

“The commander in chief has Article II responsibilities,” Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters Monday, referring to the section of the Constitution covering presidential power.

Voicing strong opposition to voting on a bipartisan measure to reassert Congress’ war powers, he continued: “They’re very serious and important, especially in times like this. I think he used that authority judiciously.”

He dismissed the resolution, sponsored by Reps. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., and Ro Khanna, D-Calif., as “all politics,” signaling that he was not inclined to allow their bid to force a vote on the military strikes. And he noted that presidents of both parties had undertaken significant military actions without congressional approval, often with little pushback from their allies on Capitol Hill.

Johnson’s comments came just after House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., signaled support for such a vote and castigated Trump for his lack of consultation with Congress. He also claimed that the administration still had not given top leaders the customary classified briefing that accompanies such military operations.

“The use of military force which is offensive in nature must be approved by the House and the Senate,” Jeffries said during a news conference at the Capitol. “It’s not optional, Donald. It’s not.”

Lawmakers have seen “no evidence to date” that the strikes on Iran were justified under the law, or that there was an “imminent threat” to the United States, Jeffries said, adding: “If the administration has evidence to the contrary, come up to present it.”

Cross party lines

Still, the divides over Trump’s strikes on Iran defy party lines. Some senior Democrats praised the action as a justified and necessary response to a grave threat from Iran, while anti-interventionist Republicans on the political right criticized it as a betrayal of the president’s campaign promise to keep the United States out of endless wars abroad.

“This is not constitutional,” Massie wrote on social media shortly after the strikes.

Yet few Republicans have joined him in criticizing the strikes. The most vocal has been Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, who has refrained from directly attacking Trump, but blamed “neocons, warmongers, military industrial complex contracts, and neocon TV personalities” for influencing a decision she denounced.

“Only six months in and we are back into foreign wars, regime change, and World War III,” Greene wrote on social media Monday. Still, she has not indicated any plans to support the war powers resolution.

What Dems say

Democrats, too, are divided. Several senior members have called the strike unconstitutional and complained that they were not told about the operation and still have yet to be briefed.

“Congress is now on Day 10 of not receiving any formal briefing from the administration or having any information to provide Americans who are in harm’s way,” Sens. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., and Chris Coons, D-Del., said in a joint statement Monday that called for de-escalation and diplomacy.

But some Democrats have refrained from criticizing the Iran operation and even offered praise for Trump’s move.

During an interview Monday on Fox News, Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., backed the strike and dismissed constitutional concerns.

“I think it was entirely appropriate,” he said. “It really wasn’t about unconstitutional, or anything like that. It was a very, very limited military engagement, and then it took them out, damaged them severely.”