President Donald Trump’s threat to blow up Iranian power plants and bridges — in his own words, to send the country “back to the Stone Ages” — is facing stiff pushback from Democrats, who are warning the commander-in-chief is on the precipice of committing war crimes.
Republicans, by contrast, hardly see a problem at all.
The president’s threat came Easter morning, when — in an expletive-laced post — Trump indicated he was prepared to order the U.S. military to blow up key infrastructure across Iran starting Tuesday.
“Open the Fuckin’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell,” the president wrote.
By Monday, Trump doubled down on this threat, dismissing questions as to whether such an attack on power plants and bridges would amount to a war crime.
“No, not at all,” he said, adding, “I hope I don’t have to do it.”
So far, Republicans are giving the president latitude — and downplaying questions of potential war crimes.
Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa — a veteran — defended the president’s threats, saying “it’s an ongoing operation, and if he needs leverage, he’s using that leverage.”
Ernst argued there’s some nuance in this case because the civilian resources in question are “being used by the military, there’s no doubt.”
Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., told MS NOW he was not thrilled with the president’s “vulgar and profane” language, saying “leadership requires self control.”
But on the question of whether blowing up bridges and power plants would amount to war crimes, Bacon said, “There’s mixed opinions on it. I got mixed feelings on it.”
And Rep. Randy Fine, R-Fla. — an outspoken defender of Israel — outright cheered the president’s threat, writing online Monday, “Happy Power Plant and Bridge Eve.”
Others have defended the president more broadly since he announced the threat.
Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., posted online Monday that the “only thing” Iranians understood is strength.”
“After years of Democrats’ weak appeasement, it’s great to have a Commander-in-Chief that understands we can’t just send them pallets of cash, the evil regime must be held accountable!” he wrote.
And Rep. Clay Higgins, R-La., urged Trump to “hit” the Iranians “harder than ever Mr. President. Hit them so hard, the Angels in Heaven nod in wonder.”
Trump launched the war with Iran just over three months after a group of six Democratic veterans of the military and intelligence communities — two senators and four House members — released a video urging those currently serving to “refuse illegal orders.”
The Trump administration quickly dubbed the group “The Seditious Six” and attempted to indict them.
On Monday, one of those Democrats — Rep. Jason Crow, D-Col. – told MS NOW he continues to stand by that video and argued it is time for “Americans of all stripes” to stand up and “condemn what the President is saying and say, ‘We will not tolerate it, and we will seek accountability if he moves forward with it.’”
Asked if he believes those serving in the defense and intelligence sectors may now be facing the possibility of receiving an illegal order from Trump, Crow told MS NOW that it is “hard for us to tell” because Congress is not being briefed accordingly.
Another one of the six — Sen. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich. — warned that if the president’s threats online are carried out it would “violate the law of armed conflict as laid out in the Geneva Conventions.”
Slotkin added that it’s “our service members who are put in legal and mortal danger.”
“When the smoke clears, it will be our service members — not President Trump or Secretary Hegseth — who could have to live with the consequences,” she wrote.
Recommended
Some Democrats are urging Republicans to call Congress back from recess and hold a vote on a war powers resolution to put a check on the president’s military actions. (Congress is currently slated to be out of town until next week.)
Other Democrats are warning that Trump’s threats are a serious and new line.
Rep. Seth Moulton, D-Mass. — a Marine veteran — accused Trump of “gleefully threatening to commit war crimes in Iran.” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., described the president as “ranting like an unhinged madman.” And Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., posted that “targeting civilian infrastructure is a war crime & only solidifies the regime’s power.”
Republicans have overwhelmingly rejected putting a check on the president’s actions overseas in recent months — not just when it comes to Iran, but Venezuela, as well.
That’s not to say there aren’t some signs that Republicans are getting squeamish about the possibility of a prolonged conflict in the Middle East.
Trump’s expected request for more war funding — perhaps to the tune of $200 billion — is already testing GOP loyalty, with several Republicans saying they want more details about what the president intends to do with it.
Sen. John Curtis, R-Utah, posted that while he supports “maintaining our readiness and replenishing stockpiles, I cannot support funding for further military operations without a formal declaration of war from Congress.”
Asked if the war in Iran needs congressional approval for Trump to receive more funding, Rep. Mike Lawler of New York — one of three Republicans who represents a district Vice President Kamala Harris won in 2024 — downplayed such a scenario on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
“Congress has not declared war since World War II,” Lawler said.
But, he noted that the War Powers Act requires the president to withdraw troops from a military deployment within 60 days unless Congress authorizes the use of military force, though the president also gets a 30-day extension to withdraw troops, effectively giving Trump 90 days in Iran.
The war started on Feb. 28 — 37 days ago.
“As this moves forward, if it goes beyond the 60 to 90 day window, then yes, Congress will need to take necessary action, and I would support that,” Lawler said on Sunday.
But whether Republicans are actually ready to rein in the president remains to be seen.
Most GOP lawmakers seem to think Trump won’t follow through on his threats to “blow up” the entire country of Iran — either because the Islamic Republic reaches a deal, or because Trump will chicken out.
If the president were to dramatically escalate military strikes — or if he put boots on the ground — there could be a new outcry for congressional approval.
For now, Republicans are betting his threats are leverage, not policy. But if that bet doesn’t pay off, many lawmakers may soon have to decide how willing they are to let Trump turn brinkmanship into reality.
Mychael Schnell and Jack Fitzpatrick contributed to this report.
Kevin Frey is a congressional reporter for MS NOW.
