Calm Down, Thomas
While the rest of the country was reacting to Trump’s precision strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities with either praise or panic, Rep. Thomas Massie came sprinting out of the woodwork waving a pocket Constitution like it was a red flag at a bullfight.
This is not Constitutional. https://t.co/EU3fS5jcwb
— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) June 21, 2025
To which I say: That’s cute, but let’s go over some facts.
Receipts: Why Trump’s Iran Strike Was Not Unconstitutional
-
Article II, Section 2 – The Constitution says the President “shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy.” That gives him the authority to direct military action without a full congressional vote—especially in urgent or defensive scenarios. -
War Powers Resolution of 1973 – Allows the President to use military force for up to 60 days (plus a 30-day withdrawal period) without needing Congressional approval, so long as he notifies Congress within 48 hours. Trump did. -
Historical Precedent – Presidents from Reagan to Obama have ordered military strikes without congressional declarations of war. From Libya to Syria, it’s not unusual—it’s just unpopular depending on who’s in office. -
No Ground Troops, No War Declaration – Trump’s action wasn’t a full-scale invasion or occupation. It was a targeted military strike—well within the limits of executive power. -
Imminent Threats Justify Action – Courts have long acknowledged the President’s right to act swiftly when there’s an immediate threat to U.S. interests or national security. Iran’s nuclear escalations crossed that line.
In other words, Trump’s move wasn’t rogue—it was textbook.
But that didn’t stop Thomas Massie from grabbing his quill and drafting something of his own.
He Filed His Own War Powers Resolution
Because tweeting about it wasn’t enough, Thomas Massie decided to make it official. While most of Congress was out enjoying their taxpayer-funded recess, Massie was in D.C., playing Founding Father cosplay and filing his very own War Powers Resolution. That’s right—he wants Congress to pre-debate potential military action, just in case a future president gets ideas.
You’d think someone who is devoted to the Constitution would remember that presidents already have leeway under it, and under the 1973 War Powers Resolution, too. But hey, when you’re gunning for libertarian legend status or quietly auditioning for something bigger, you’ve got to make a statement.
Side-Eye Snapshot: The Massie Makeover
Not to get catty—but since when did Thomas Massie start looking like he’s auditioning for a Yellowstone reboot? Somewhere between Kentucky engineer and rugged libertarian heartthrob, he’s gone from awkward dad-core to “I chop my own firewood and quote Ayn Rand at dinner.”
Looks great! @RepThomasMassie
Facial hair is underrated….
— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) January 15, 2025
After the heartbreaking loss of his wife late last year, Massie’s been showing up with a noticeably sharpened look. Slimmer suits, a cleaner cut, and that confident-on-camera aura? There’s a whole new Massie on the Hill—and he’s undeniably camera-ready. He looks completely different today.
Personal transformation? Absolutely possible. But it’s also giving soft launch. A third-party flirtation? A “principled” spoiler campaign? That War Powers flex? It’s more than just a principled stand—it’s looking a lot like pre-campaign positioning. I am giving Thomas Massie the serious side-eye on this glow up.
Massie’s Problem with Trump Didn’t Start with Iran
In this clip from Face the Nation, recorded just hours ago, Rep. Thomas Massie argues there was no real threat from Iran, so Trump’s strike, in his view, misinterprets the Constitution.
Watch the segment and tell me: Is this Massie standing on principle, or is he just standing in the way?
The rift between Donald Trump and Thomas Massie started back in March 2020, when Massie tried to delay the $2.2 trillion COVID relief bill by demanding a full roll-call vote. The move angered both parties and led Trump to post on X: “Throw Massie out of the Republican Party! He’s a disaster for America.” The bill passed anyway, but their relationship never recovered.
Final Thought
Hey, I like Thomas Massie. I respect that he’s one of the few in Congress still fighting to shrink government and slash spending. Fiscal hawks are nearly extinct, and he’s been consistent on that front. But there’s a difference between standing on principle and standing in the way just to make a point. Right now, Massie’s looking less like a rebel with a cause and more like the guy who missed the America First bus—and has been honking at it from the curb ever since.
Thomas Massie is absolutely within his rights to call out constitutional overreach and even draft his own War Powers Resolution. But maybe don’t wield the Constitution like a swagger stick—especially when the President already has legal authority under Article II and the 1973 Resolution.
And if this isn’t just congressional posturing—if this is Candidate Massie softly announcing his entrance into the race—then those power moves and glow-up selfies aren’t just a coincidence. We’re watching the beta-test of “Massie 2028.”
Feature Image: Thomas Massie X account/Thomas Massie/Gage Skidmore/Flickr/License CC BY-SA 2.0/edited in Canva Pro
The post Massie v. Trump: The Constitution, the Grudge, and the Glow-Up appeared first on An Americanist.
Leave a Reply