What A Day - Why Congress Might Not Stop Trump’s War In Iran

Episode Date: March 3, 2026

Today, Trump officials brief all of Congress on what, exactly, the administration’s objectives are in Iran. Until now, the Trump administration has given conflicting accounts as to why the U.S. attacked Iran on Saturday, and there are many questions members of Congress need to ask. But will they ask them, and will the answers even matter? Nicholas Wu, a congressional reporter for Semafor, explains what Congress is likely to do – and not do.And in headlines, First Lady Melania Trump presides over a United Nations Security Council meeting about protecting children in conflict, a House committee releases videos from the Clintons’ Epstein testimony, and it’s primary day for voters in three Southern states.Show Notes: Call Congress – 202-224-3121 Subscribe to the What A Day Newsletter – https://tinyurl.com/y4y2e9jy What A Day – YouTube – https://www.youtube.com/@whatadaypodcast Follow us on Instagram – https://www.instagram.com/crookedmedia/ For a transcript of this episode, please visit crooked.com/whataday

It's Tuesday, March 3rd. I'm Jane Koston, and this is what a day. The show that felt so bad for Oklahoma Republican Senator Mark Wayne Mullen speaking on Fox Business Monday. It really is tough to keep your Middle East conflicts straight. But it's up to the Iraqi people, or I'm sorry, the Iranian people to choose their next leader. I know. It's such an easy mistake to make. On today's show, First Lady Melania Trump presides over a united,

nation security council meeting about protecting children in conflict, something the Trump administration definitely cares about, and its primary day for voters in three southern states. But let's start with the war in Iran and the battle over what to do about it in Congress. As of our recording time on Monday, the U.S. and Israel are continuing to attack targets across Iran. And in the first public address by a Trump administration official since the attacks began, defense secretary Pete Hegseth, told reporters, or, more accurately, gild at reporters on Monday, that it's really none of their business or yours what the U.S. is doing there. But going forward, why in the world would we tell you, you, the enemy, anybody,

what we will or will not do in pursuit of an objective? We fight to win. We fight to achieve the objectives the President of the United States has laid out, and we will do so unapologetically. But according to the War Powers resolution of 1973, it actually is Congress's business. And lawmakers weren't fully briefed either, until, hopefully, today. Members of the Trump administration, including Secretary Hegzath, are briefing all of Congress on what exactly the Trump administration's objectives are, because I still have no idea why the United States started bombing around in the first place. But according to a Twitter post from White House Press Secretary Caroline Levitt, the administration's objectives are clear. Destroy Iran's military capacity and ensure the country can't develop a nuclear weapon. No regime change needed. Hegz said the same thing in his presser, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio made simple. points on his own comments to reporters on Monday.

We would not mind, we would not be heartbroken, and we hope that the Iranian people can overthrow this government and establish a new future for that country. We would love for that to be possible. But the objective of this mission is the destruction of their ballistic missile capabilities and of their naval capabilities. But hang on a second, because Donald Trump suggested on Saturday that the point of the strikes was freeing the Iranian people from the Islamic Republic. In a video message posted as bombing began, Trump told Iranians that this was the time for them to take over the government. Now is the time to seize control of your destiny and to unleash the prosperous and glorious future that is close within your reach. Sounds regime changing to me,

but there's also the question of why? Why was Iran a threat so terrifying that the United States needed to bomb the country now? Was it nuclear weapons, intercontinental ballistic missiles, according to Secretary Ruby on Monday? No. We knew that there was going to be an Israeli action. We knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces. And we knew that if we didn't preemptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties and perhaps even higher those killed. That is what Rubio described as the, quote, imminent threat. If Israel attacked Iran, Iran would then attack the United States, which is not what I thought imminent meant. It sure seems like there are a lot of questions members of Congress need to be asking,

but my question is, will they? And will it matter? So for more of what Congress will do on Iran, I spoke to Nicholas Wu. He's a congressional reporter for Semaphore. Nicholas, welcome back to Waddei. Thanks so much for having me. The House and the Senate were already set to vote on war powers resolutions before the United States and Israel bombed Tehran. What were these resolutions originally intended to do? These resolutions were basically intended to try to rein in any kind of military action against Iran. And prior to the strikes this past weekend and through this week, these were almost a preemptive war powers resolution. But now it's, you know, very much a live issue with military action in the region.

Are you hearing of anyone changing their votes now that this has actually happened? Like, how has the conversation changed now that we're, you know, bombing Iran? Well, it's kind of interesting. There's folks really in both parties that might cross lines here. You know, Republican leaders in both chambers are really trying very hard to kill these war powers resolutions. but there's a few folks kind of more from like the Maga, almost in some ways more isolationist wing of the Republican Party who are really skeptical of military action generally. And so some of them like Warren Davidson of Ohio are saying that they really want to hear

from the administration and when they brief all of Congress to hear what their rationale is and folks like him are really sticking their vote on it. On the other side, you know, there's some Democrats like, you know, Greg Landman of Ohio who are saying that they are going to oppose the war powers. resolution because they do support the military action against Iran. Now, there are a lot of steps a war powers resolution would need to go through before becoming law. What does that look like? Well, we got to remember that, you know, the Senate filibuster still exists. And this is something that both chambers would have to pass. And, you know, there's no guarantee that, you know,

you can get a majority in both the House and the Senate, let alone the supermajority that you need in the Senate to break a filibuster. So just to be clear, they would need to get 60 votes to make it filibuster proof. And they're almost certainly not going to get that. They'll come up short. And Democrats are already acknowledging that. They're saying that this is just the first step to even have the debate is important. And for that matter, they can continue to force this vote, especially as the president has been saying that this conflict could go on for quite some time. But let's say, theoretically, one of these resolutions does pass and there's somehow enough support to override a inevitable veto from Trump. How would the resolution even be enforced?

That's where we get into kind of uncharted territory. You know, we all learn from schoolhouse rock. We all learn back in school that the president has to go from Congress to ask for permission to wage war. But, you know, for so long, Congress has ceded a lot of that power over to the president. And the administration has been saying that, you know, they can wage these strikes against Iran because of these existing authorizations from military force that were passed by Congress. But, you know, there's a lot of debate around that. And how this might even play out if, say, Congress. did in fact try to rein in the administration and the administration didn't comply.

I'm aware this is kind of a big question, but I'm just thinking back the last couple of presidential administrations, and we've seen so many times where presidents will, you know, bomb other countries or do actions that are war adjacent or warlike, but don't go to Congress. Why did Congress start ceding that power pretty much after the Iraq war? It's something that, you know, really both parties are guilty of doing, you know, ever since the Iraq war, whether in Democratic administrations, military force has been used without Congress's authorization, and same with the Trump administration. And it's the argument that the administrations on both parties will often make is that, you know, they have to be able

to act quickly without having to go to Congress, which will take time, they'll also debate, and the speed required to use military force might not align with all of the procedures that would follow with that. At the same time, we do see kind of the partisan lines hardening any time. You know, the opposing parties president uses force. We'll see Republicans sometimes come out against the Democratic president and vice versa. There have been parallels drawn between this war in Iran and the war in Iraq from 2003. I know I've been making that parallel. But there are differences.

For one, President Bush actually went to Congress and asked for permission before dropping bombs. But by 2023, many lawmakers said they regretted approving his request. And the Senate repealed the authorization. From what you've observed, are lawmakers keeping the lessons of the war in Iraq in mind at all? It's something that's certainly fresh for a lot of lawmakers, especially since now two decades on from that. We have quite a few members of Congress who did serve in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we see lawmakers really getting quite personal in talking about their experiences serving in those wars and the memory of that in how they think about approving congressional authorization for the use

of force or supporting the use of U.S. force against Iran more generally. And so it's been a very interesting dynamic to follow as this debate unfolds. On top of all of this, and this feels, I mean, it's so important, but also it feels kind of like an aside, Americans could feel this war in their wallets with, say, oil prices soaring, which I know kind of might help Democrats and might hurt Republicans, especially with regard to the affordability message. Do lawmakers have plans to help, or are they talking about this? There are very preliminary discussions, it seems that some lawmakers are having about, you know, what to do about any, you know, any, potential increases in gas prices, for example. But, you know, it's the conflict still unfolding. There's a lot of questions about what this will do to global markets and the price of oil. And this is something that Congress will definitely have to consider if the impacts are felt more severely.

You follow Congress day in, day out. What do you expect will actually happen here? Will a war powers resolution pass? Where are we going? A war powers resolution is almost certainly not going to pass the House or Senate. But what is going to be going to be. to be interesting to follow over the coming days and then, you know, potentially if this comes up again in the future, is the fractures that we're going to see in both party, really, on these votes. Since, you know, among Republicans, we have some of the more isolationist voices who are very skeptical of the use of military force. And among Democrats, you do have some more pro-Israel folks who are more inclined to support the use of force against Iran, even if they disagree

with Trump himself. Nicholas, as always, thank you so much for joining me. so much, Shane. That was my conversation with Nicholas Wu, congressional reporter for some before. We'll get to more of the news in the moment, but first, have I ever told you that you're the best audience ever? Because you are. If you want to be even better, please subscribe, leave a five-star review on Spotify and Apple Podcasts, watch us on YouTube, and share the show with your friends. More to come after some ads. Where Today is brought to you by Delete Me. Delete Me makes it easy, quick, and safe to remove your personal data online at a time when surveillance and data breaches are common enough to make

everyone vulnerable. Data brokers make a profit off your data. Your data is a commodity. Anyone on the web can buy your private details. This can lead to identity theft, fishing attempts, and harassment. But now you can protect your privacy with Delete Me. As someone with an active online presence, privacy is really important to me. If you've never been a victim of harassment or doxing, you probably know someone who has. Delete Me can help. Take control of your data and keep your Private Life Private by signing up for Delete Me. Now it is special discount for our listeners. Get 20% off your DeleteMe plan when you go to join DeleteMe.com slash Wad and use promo code Wad at checkout. The only way to get 20% off is to go to join delete me.com slash Wad and

enter code Wad at checkout. That's JoinDeletme.com slash Wad, code Wad. This episode is sponsored by BetterHelp. International Women's Day is coming up. A moment to celebrate women's strength and progress while also recognizing how much they carry every day. Between caring for others and managing unseen responsibilities, their emotional well-being can easily be overlooked. Therapy offers a space for women to take care of themselves and the way they deserve. BetterHelp therapists work according to a strict code of conduct and are fully licensed in the U.S. And BetterHelp does the initial matching work for you so you can focus on your therapy goals. A short questionnaire helps identify your needs and preferences and their 12-plus years of experience

and industry-leading match fulfillment rate means they typically get it right the first time. If you aren't happy with your match, switch to a different therapist at any time from their tailored recommendations. Your emotional well-being matters. Find support and feel lighter in therapy. Sign up and get 10% off at betterhelp.com slash wad. That's better-h-elp.com slash wad. Here's what else we're following today. Whatever the time is, it's okay. Whatever it takes, we will always, and we have right from the beginning, we projected four to five weeks. but we have capability to go far longer than that. President Trump told attendees at a White House ceremony to award medals of honor Monday that from his vantage point, the timeline for the U.S. war with Iran is whatever he says it is.

Though the four to five weeks figure is up a bit from the, quote, four weeks or less, that he gave the Daily Mail just a day before. What's a 25% longer war between adversaries? Trump took a moment to address the elephant in the room, though, insisting he will not get bored. no matter how long the war drags on. I never get bored. If I got bored, I wouldn't be standing here right now. I guarantee you that to go through what I had to go through.

If I never got bored, I would not repeatedly tell people I never got bored, but that's just me. The U.S. stands with all of the children throughout the world. I hope soon, peace will be yours. First Lady Melania Trump on Monday presided over a United Nations Security Council meeting that focused on children in conflict. The First Lady acknowledged the meeting came amidst, quote, challenging times. You know, seeing as the United States and Israel are waging a war against Iran, and there are credible claims that dozens of children were killed when a school was hit in early strikes.

According to the UN, First Ladies have taken part in Security Council meetings, but this was the first time a sitting First Lady presided over one. Melania Trump urged members of the Security Council to, quote, safeguard learning, adding, Enduring peace will be achieved when knowledge and understanding are fully valued within all our societies. Okay, Miss Universe. She spoke about protecting children's access to education and technology and conflict, but she might want to compare notes with her husband about that because his administration has cut funding for a slew of UN agencies that work on those very issues.

Actually, they seem like they'd have a lot to discuss if they ever got to chatting. Primaries are underway today in Texas, North Carolina. and Arkansas. Voters in all three states will choose U.S. Senate candidates for the midterms, but Texas's race has the distinction of being the most expensive Senate primary ever. Taxing candidates and their backers spent, wait for it, more than $120 million on campaign ads. What did this cash buy? On the Democratic side, a super PAC supporting state representative James Tolariko has put out ads claiming the GOP is spending money to boost his opponent, Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett.

Last week, Crockett earned an endorsement from former Vice President, President Kamala Harris, who recorded a robocall in support. And on the Republican side, it's a race to the bottom, with incumbent Senator John Cornyn running against Attorney General Ken Paxton. If you're in Texas and watch TV, you've definitely heard that Paxton's wife accused him of adultery, and you'd know that he's running to the right of Cornyn. But as we talked about last week, because it's the GOP, the two candidates have united in villainizing Texas's Muslim community. So let's hope neither of them has what it takes to win in November. This is a deposition of former president William Jefferson Clinton conducted by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform under the authority granted to it pursuant to House Rule 10.

A House committee investigating convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein released videos on Monday of former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton answering questions about the late financier. They both set for hours-long closed-door depositions last week, months after fighting congressional subpoenas. Both Clintons distanced themselves from Epstein and repeated what they had said before. Bill didn't know him well and Hillary didn't know him personally at all. The former Democratic president said he remembered first meeting Epstein when he flew aboard his private jet in 2002 for the Clinton's humanitarian work. Clinton said his relationship with Epstein ended in 2003. When did you first learn of Jeffrey Epstein's crimes? I think in 2008 when he was prosecuted, I didn't, there was nothing that I saw.

When I was around him, it made me realize he was trafficking women. As for the former Secretary of State, I do not recall ever meeting Jeffrey Epstein in preparation for this hearing. I was told that he attended an event at the White House that was put on by the White House Historical Association. But I have no recollection of that. And that's the news. Before we go,

You might know Dan Pfeiffer from Potsave America. You know, former senior advisor to Barack Obama and co-host of the show. If you want the nitty-gritty on the latest polls, headlines on political nonsense, subscribe to his MessageBox newsletter. Right now, he's offering 20% off subscriptions for crooked listeners. Messagebox cuts through the noise so you can actually understand what's happening and maybe gain a little clarity and sanity along the way. He recently covered what the latest swing state polling actually tells us about 2026,

how to read through misleading economic headlines, and why the media keeps falling. for the same political traps. Sign up today at crook.com slash yes we d'an and get 20% off your subscription. That's all for today. If you like the show, make sure you subscribe, leave a review, get me a dinosaur,

and tell your friends to listen. And if you're into reading, I'm not just about how I try serotep skeleton that's more than 66 million years old is now available for sale. Like me, Waterday is also a nightly newsletter. Check it out and subscribe at crooked.com slash subscribe.

I'm Jane Koston, and that triceratops name is Trey. Trey, the triceratops. Again, please get me this dinosaur. It's just like $5 million. What Today is a production of Crooked Media. It's recorded and mixed by Desmond Taylor. Our associate producer is Emily Four. Our producer is Caitlin Plummer. Our video editor is Joseph Dutra. Our video producer is Johanna Case. We had a production help today from Greg Walters, Matt Berg, Sean Ali, and Ethan Oberman. Our senior producer is Erica Morrison and our senior Your Vice President of News and Politics is Adrian Hill.

Our theme music is by Kyle Murdoch and Jordan Cantor. We had helped today from the Associated Press. Our production staff is proudly unionized with the Writers Guild of America East.