Bulwark Takes: “I Found Out on Twitter”: Trump Kept Congress In The Dark on Iran Strikes
Release Date: June 22, 2025
Host: Sam Stein
Guest: Congressman Jim Himes, Ranking Member of the House Intelligence Committee

Overview

In the second episode of Bulwark Takes, host Sam Stein engages in a critical discussion with Congressman Jim Himes regarding the recent U.S. military strikes in Iran. The conversation delves into the constitutional implications of the administration's unilateral decision, the lack of congressional briefing, and the potential short and long-term consequences of the strikes on both U.S. national security and regional stability.

Lack of Congressional Briefing and Constitutional Concerns

Congressman Himes opens the dialogue by expressing his surprise and concern over the administration's decision to attack Iranian facilities without prior congressional knowledge or approval.

• “I was sitting on my sofa last night, Saturday night, enjoying a cold beer, when I read on Twitter that we had just attacked Iran.” ([00:36])

Himes emphasizes the constitutional requirement for Congress to authorize such military actions, highlighting that the current administration does not prioritize adherence to constitutional norms.

• “This is not an administration that puts a high premium on abiding by the Constitution.” ([00:36])

He underscores the importance of congressional debate, especially when significant American military presence is involved.

• “But there's a reason why, when you have 40,000 American troops in the region, why you really want to have the debate and you want to play out the scenarios and actually have Congress authorize these things.” ([00:36])

Critique of Partisan Pushback

Stein introduces the argument made by some Republicans that the lack of a briefing was due to potential leaks, and that the strike was a unique opportunity that required immediate action. Himes counters these points by asserting that constitutional obligations cannot be overridden by partisan convenience.

• “You don't get to ignore the Constitution.” ([03:00])

He expresses concern over the reasoning that the outcome of the strike justifies bypassing constitutional processes.

• “If the Constitution means anything, that kind of reasoning has to stop at word one.” ([03:09])

Assessing the Effectiveness of the Iran Strikes

The conversation shifts to evaluating the success of the strikes. President Trump claims that three Iranian facilities have been "completely and totally obliterated." However, Joint Chiefs General Kane disputes this, stating that a battle damage assessment is not yet possible.

• “It's impossible to do a battle damage assessment... because you can't really get a great sense through aerial or aerial surveillance.” ([05:33])

Himes aligns with General Kane's stance, questioning the administration's premature assertions and highlighting the uncertainty surrounding the actual impact of the strikes.

• “We don't know right now.” ([05:33])

He presents a scenario where the strikes may not have achieved their intended purpose, potentially escalating the nuclear threat rather than diminishing it.

• “In the best case scenario... this is going to turn out five years from now to be another constitutional argument about whether president should attack.” ([17:05])

Potential Short-Term and Long-Term Consequences

Himes outlines various scenarios that could unfold as a result of the strikes, ranging from increased hostility and attacks on U.S. military bases to the possibility of Iran accelerating its nuclear program in secrecy.

• “We're going to hear nothing from the Iranians for the next six months until we see a nuclear test.” ([11:00])

He warns against underestimating the regime's capacity to retaliate or adapt, citing historical precedents in the Middle East.

• “The enemy gets a vote.” ([11:00])

Additionally, Himes touches on the unpredictability of popular uprisings in Iran as a potential outcome, though he remains skeptical based on historical trends.

• “The Iranian people rise up and overthrow the regime and there's no nuclear threat... that's a possibility.” ([13:11])

Recommendations for Future Actions

Given the irreversible nature of the strikes, Himes discusses the limited options available moving forward. He advocates for adherence to constitutional processes in future military engagements to ensure broader national support and strategic deliberation.

• “It's not getting enough press. My fear is not so much, although I do worry about this, that they're going to attack our air bases and our naval bases. My fear is that we're going to hear nothing from the Iranians for the next six months until we see a nuclear test.” ([16:32])

Himes stresses the importance of diplomacy and warns against viewing military action as a first resort, underscoring that the strikes circumvented ongoing diplomatic efforts.

• “Diplomacy was not dead... we actually had negotiations underway.” ([17:05])

Conclusion

Congressman Jim Himes provides a critical lens on the recent unilateral military action against Iran, emphasizing constitutional breaches and the uncertain ramifications of the strikes. The discussion highlights the necessity for congressional involvement in significant military decisions and cautions against the potential escalation of nuclear threats due to hasty executive actions.

Notable Quotes

• “This is not an administration that puts a high premium on abiding by the Constitution.” — Jim Himes ([00:36])

• “You don't get to ignore the Constitution.” — Jim Himes ([03:00])

• “We're going to hear nothing from the Iranians for the next six months until we see a nuclear test.” — Jim Himes ([11:00])

• “The enemy gets a vote.” — Jim Himes ([11:00])

• “Diplomacy was not dead... we actually had negotiations underway.” — Jim Himes ([17:05])

This episode serves as a vital commentary on the interplay between executive action and legislative oversight, especially in the context of international military interventions and nuclear proliferation concerns.