Sen. Angus King woke up earlier this month to the news that the U.S. and Israel had launched strikes against Iran. Days later, he was forced to reckon with what he sees as Congress’ failure to approve checks on President Donald Trump’s war powers.

The 81-year-old senator, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, has a lot on his mind. He says he knows “of no historical precedent” for how the Iran attacks unfolded. Overnight, the Middle East was swept into a broader war that has no immediate end in sight.

While King has previously warned that Trump is defying constitutional norms, he also has taken flak from progressives for voting to confirm some Trump nominees. He spoke with the Press Herald by phone from Washington on Thursday for a wide-ranging Q&A.

The interview came one day after Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and most Senate Republicans voted to defeat the war powers resolution meant to limit Trump, and hours before the House defeated a similar effort.

Some responses have been edited for length and clarity.

Press Herald: After the war powers vote, what are the realistic odds that this current Congress will ever put more checks on President Trump’s abilities to launch military strikes?

Sen. Angus King: Well, I’m pessimistic about this Congress putting realistic limits on anything this president does. This war power issue is only one of a series that started almost immediately when he took office, of his taking unilateral action in direct violation of law and the Constitution, destroying agencies, defunding agencies, impounding congressional appropriations and now going to war, which is probably the clearest breach of the constitutional imperatives.

Article I, Section Eight specifically says Congress shall have the power to declare war. … Of course, every day this week we’ve had a new justification for why we did this, but I have seen no evidence that there was any imminent threat that would justify unilateral presidential action without consultation or an action by Congress.

Clearly, the president has the power to defend the country if there’s an imminent attack, if missiles are on their way to to the East Coast of the U.S. … In this case, the administration has really not produced any information or intelligence that there was some immediate risk to our vital interests — and in that case, he should have come to Congress and made the case to the American people and then we could decide, “OK, is this worth the cost and the risk to American lives?”

We’ve lost six people, and it’s costing us a billion dollars a day, and I believe the American people have a right to participate in that decision. And so this was a very disappointing vote, but consistent with the prior record of this Congress, which has been an absolute abdication of our constitutional responsibility.

Press Herald: How powerful is Israel and its leadership after this latest conflict erupted, in your mind?

King: (U.S. Secretary of State) Marco Rubio on (March 2) stated unequivocally that the timing of this strike was based upon the fact that they thought Israel was going to strike anyway, and that we better get involved in order to be in a position to defend against Iran’s response. I thought that was the breathtaking assertion.

Now the president has walked it back and said, “No, no. I was the one that pushed it. It wasn’t Israel.” But the comments of the secretary of state, again, were made without qualification, and frankly, it was the only thing that I saw that explained the timing when I woke up last Saturday morning to this news.

But the first question that popped into my mind is, why now? And the only argument that they’ve made as to why now that makes any sense is what the secretary said, that it was based upon Israel’s intention to strike, which raises the very disturbing question of this most profound decision for our country to commit itself to war is being made essentially on the actions and the intentions of another country. I’m supportive of Israel, but I don’t think we should outsource the decision to commit the country to war.

Press Herald: Can you recall a similar episode (where another country dictated U.S. decisions on military strikes) in the past?

King: I know of no historical precedent for this. When we went to Iraq, there was a long discussion. There was a debate. There was a congressional authorization. There were contested votes. There were closed sessions where intelligence was presented about what was going on, and then the decision was made to go forward.

Most people now believe that was a mistake, and it was in some part based upon faulty intelligence. But I know of no case where we’ve committed to a war because another country essentially would precipitate it.

I’m just in the middle of a book about (former President) Franklin Roosevelt and (former British Prime Minister) Winston Churchill. Churchill did everything he could to get us into World War II. … There was a long debate and discussion, and there was a strong movement in this country to not get involved in the war. But it was finally made.

That decision was made after Pearl Harbor, not based upon England’s insistence that we should join them in the war. So that’s a historical precedent that points in the other direction.

Presidents have taken these kinds of actions, but I can never recall one taking one of this major consequence and long-term impacts unilaterally, without any consultation or input from the American people.

Press Herald: After this latest conflict erupted now, do you feel Trump deserves any of your votes going forward? You’ve had critics in the past year wonder, why vote for any of his nominees, why sign off on anything that he does if you feel he’s violating the Constitution?

King: Well, I approach each issue on its merits, and I’m not going to say I’m not going to vote for anything that the president supports. It’s possible that he might stumble upon an important issue that is important to Maine, and I would support it. The same goes for his nominees. I voted for some of them who I thought were qualified and able, but I voted against many, many of them who I thought were unqualified and not competent, and I think we’ve seen that play out.

One of the problems with this administration is that they very rarely come to Congress. We’ve only really passed two major pieces of legislation since he’s been in office (for a second term) — the reconciliation bill and the One Big Beautiful Bill. And I didn’t vote for either of those, but I’m not going to say categorically I’m not going to vote for anything, because there may be something that’s important to Maine or the country. Even the blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then.

Press Herald: What conversations are you having now with any other senators or representatives about what members may need to consider doing with this war? Or are you out of options?

King: I think events are going to drive the options. And I noticed reading some comments from very conservative members of the House that for them, boots on the ground were a red line. Here’s the problem — the president spent a substantial amount of his time in that early morning video he made talking about the people of Iran and how they should rise up and take over their government and that he’s created the opportunity.

He said similar things back in January when they were protesting. … Here’s what concerns me. You cannot protect protesters from the IRGC (Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps) from the air. You have to have troops. You have to have somebody there, and there are only two options I see.

If we’re going to protect the people of Iran, if they indeed do rise up to try to take over this terrible regime, we’re not going to be able to do it with missiles and air and bombs, and either we’re going to leave them exposed, or it requires boots on the ground.

One of the most disappointing things about this whole operation is a lack of planning for what’s next, and this is a glaring case where the president has made representations to the Iranian people that we’re going to support them when it appears that we’re not going to or that we’re not capable of it.

The historical reference on this that haunts me is the 1956 Hungarian uprising against Soviet domination. Former President (Dwight) Eisenhower and Secretary of State (John Foster) Dulles made pretty similar statements to what Donald Trump has made, (but) the Russian tanks came in, the uprising was crushed, and we didn’t do a thing to help them.

To me, there’s an ethical and moral commitment if you tell people to take risks on your behalf and that you’re going to have their backs, and then you don’t, I think that’s a serious problem.

I believe what the Trump administration is going to do is they’re going to complete this bombing mission with regard to the Iranian nuclear and missile capacity and call it a day. And the question then is, what happens in Iran and what happens to those people who have taken the president at his word and taken risks in order to confront the force of what’s left of the regime?

Now, I’ve got to say, this all could be a success. Moderates could take over. They could transition to some kind of democratic system, and it will be a real victory for the region and for the people of Iran, but … the problem is the regime has all the guns. If it doesn’t happen, and Iran ends up in a kind of civil war, the question is, what have we accomplished?

And another example, it appears that no planning was done about evacuating U.S. personnel in the region. … Again, it’s an indication that this project, although planned brilliantly on the military side, wasn’t fully thought through or planned on the secondary impacts.

Press Herald: Have you since learned anything more about any Mainers or Maine-based troops who are in this pretty broad conflict zone?

King: I have pursued that, and what I have learned is classified. I can’t answer that question.