'We Should Go to Court': Khanna Says Latest US Bombings of Iran a 'Blatant Violation' by Trump ⁠60%

By Jon Queally⁠0%

6/28/2026, 6:58:03 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 30 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Appeal to Authority, and False Dilemma, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 34.2% saturation with 213 hits. Analysis detected 1,669 faulty-reasoning hits from 623 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 56.1% and a BS Rank of ⁠60% (8,584 of 21,198 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 59.50% of the article peer group.

Democratic Congressman Ro Khanna on Sunday reiterated his position that new bombings of Iran by the US military over the weekend are a direct violation of a War Powers Resolution passed by Congress earlier this month and said legal action was in the works to challenge the president's ability to carry on with the unprovoked war he first launched alongside Israel in February. 
"These strikes are a blatant violation of the War Powers Resolution that we passed," Khanna said in a social media post Saturday after Trump acknowledged strikes on numerous Iranian targets. 
"Trump must stop this war now—or we will take him to court to compel him to do so." 
In a Saturday statement on his Truth Social platform, Trump said the US had "struck Iranian missile and drone storage locations, and coastal radar sites, for violating the Cease Fire Agreement, AGAIN!" 
"It is very possible that they will never learn!" 
the president exclaimed. 
"There may come a point when we are no longer able to be reasonable, and will be forced to militarily complete the job that we very successfully started. 
If that happens, the Islamic Republic of Iran will no longer exist!" 
The latest direct exchange of hostilities—that began with US bombings of Iranian targets Friday and included Iran targeting US allies in Bahrain and Kuwait on Sunday—come over lingering disagreements about how vessels will or will not pass through the Strait of Hormuz. 
"Congress passed the first War Powers Resolution in history, legally compeling an end to war on Iran," the anti-war group Just Foreign Policy said following Friday's strikes. 
"This means Trump's strikes today are an unprecedented Constitutional violation **Trump must be taken to court** to honor the American people's demand that we exit this war — NOW." 
Iran Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Sunday that “interference in [the Strait], any attempt to establish new or separate arrangements from those currently being carried out by the Islamic Republic of Iran, will only lead to further complications, delay the reopening of the strait of Hormuz, and increase the level of tension.” 
Araghchi called for a regional agreement to settle the issue of passage through the Strait, but indicated the US should have no role in determining the outcome of the settlement. 
On Saturday, the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC) said that the US—"whose very nature is characterized by breaking commitments and violating agreements"—was guilty of firing on coastal targets but that such attacks would not deter the Iranian military from exerting control over the Strait. 
"Henceforth," said the IRGC, "vessels found to be in violation will be dealt with more firmly than before." 
On June 23, a 50-48 vote in the Senate saw a war powers resolution pass the upper chamber after the House also passed a similar resolution on June 3 to bring an end to the war started by the US and Israel on February 28. 
But as Khanna explained Sunday, speaking with journalist David Sirota, these votes have not been enough to curb the president's actions. 
Asked by Sirota what he would be doing to compel Trump to adhere to the congressional opposition to Trump's ongoing aggression against Iran, Khanna said, "we should go to court." 
Noting that former Republican Congressman Tom Campbell, back in 1999, had taken former President Bill Clinton to court for violating a War Powers Resolution during the US-backed NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, Khanna said he is preparing to follow a similar course. 
"This is something that we should try to enforce," Khanna said. 
"And I'm working with my colleagues to see how we can get a group to take this case to the courts." 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 3.4%Jon Queally: 4.9%Common Dreams: 8.1%Confirmation Bias3.4%This article: 0.0%Jon Queally: 0.0%Common Dreams: 0.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 13.3%Jon Queally: 3.4%Common Dreams: 5.0%Availability Heuristic13.3%This article: 0.0%Jon Queally: 0.0%Common Dreams: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Queally: 0.4%Common Dreams: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Queally: 1.4%Common Dreams: 1.7%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 9.5%Jon Queally: 19.8%Common Dreams: 17.7%Framing Effect9.5%This article: 2.9%Jon Queally: 1.1%Common Dreams: 1.0%Loss Aversion2.9%This article: 4.8%Jon Queally: 0.3%Common Dreams: 0.6%Status Quo Bias4.8%This article: 0.0%Jon Queally: 0.0%Common Dreams: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 7.9%Jon Queally: 1.9%Common Dreams: 1.6%Optimism Bias7.9%This article: 14.6%Jon Queally: 1.0%Common Dreams: 2.8%Pessimism Bias14.6%This article: 34.2%Jon Queally: 19.2%Common Dreams: 20.7%Negativity Bias34.2%This article: 0.0%Jon Queally: 1.3%Common Dreams: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Queally: 3.0%Common Dreams: 2.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Queally: 0.2%Common Dreams: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 7.1%Jon Queally: 2.5%Common Dreams: 3.8%In-Group Bias7.1%This article: 4.8%Jon Queally: 0.7%Common Dreams: 1.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias4.8%This article: 0.0%Jon Queally: 3.3%Common Dreams: 1.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Queally: 0.0%Common Dreams: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Queally: 0.0%Common Dreams: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 3.4%Jon Queally: 0.2%Common Dreams: 1.4%Recency Bias3.4%This article: 4.3%Jon Queally: 0.9%Common Dreams: 0.5%Primacy Effect4.3%This article: 0.0%Jon Queally: 0.0%Common Dreams: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 7.1%Jon Queally: 8.3%Common Dreams: 6.4%Ad Hominem7.1%This article: 0.0%Jon Queally: 2.1%Common Dreams: 1.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 18.1%Jon Queally: 5.0%Common Dreams: 5.7%Appeal to Authority18.1%This article: 17.7%Jon Queally: 3.5%Common Dreams: 3.2%False Dilemma17.7%This article: 9.3%Jon Queally: 1.1%Common Dreams: 3.3%Slippery Slope9.3%This article: 0.0%Jon Queally: 0.4%Common Dreams: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 10.0%Jon Queally: 3.4%Common Dreams: 8.7%Hasty Generalization10.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Queally: 0.2%Common Dreams: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 4.7%Jon Queally: 4.4%Common Dreams: 2.3%Bandwagon4.7%This article: 18.5%Jon Queally: 13.9%Common Dreams: 18.7%Appeal to Emotion18.5%This article: 14.9%Jon Queally: 3.7%Common Dreams: 3.8%Begging the Question14.9%This article: 15.1%Jon Queally: 3.2%Common Dreams: 4.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)15.1%This article: 5.1%Jon Queally: 1.5%Common Dreams: 0.3%Tu Quoque5.1%This article: 4.7%Jon Queally: 2.0%Common Dreams: 1.2%Burden of Proof4.7%This article: 0.0%Jon Queally: 0.0%Common Dreams: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Queally: 0.0%Common Dreams: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 1.4%Jon Queally: 1.4%Common Dreams: 2.3%Anecdotal1.4%This article: 0.0%Jon Queally: 0.2%Common Dreams: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 1.8%Jon Queally: 2.2%Common Dreams: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)1.8%This article: 0.0%Jon Queally: 0.0%Common Dreams: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Queally: 0.0%Common Dreams: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Queally: 0.0%Common Dreams: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Queally: 0.8%Common Dreams: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Queally: 0.8%Common Dreams: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 3.4%Jon Queally: 2.2%Common Dreams: 1.8%Unattributed Quote3.4%This article: 5.1%Jon Queally: 1.3%Common Dreams: 2.6%Quote-first Misdirection5.1%This article: 4.8%Jon Queally: 14.0%Common Dreams: 17.5%Biased Writer Voice4.8%This article: 4.7%Jon Queally: 4.3%Common Dreams: 8.4%Indoctrination4.7%This article: 11.6%Jon Queally: 12.6%Common Dreams: 17.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias11.6%This article: 0.0%Jon Queally: 0.0%Common Dreams: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Queally: 6.3%Common Dreams: 1.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

623 words analyzed.

Speakers

5speakers69%attributed speech191writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 63 words • 0.0% coverageRo Khanna • 30 words • 100.0% coverageRo Khanna • 18 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 32 words • 100.0% coverageDonald Trump • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 28 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 0.0% coverageJust Foreign Policy • 27 words • 100.0% coverageJust Foreign Policy • 29 words • 100.0% coverageAbbas Araghchi • 52 words • 0.0% coverageAbbas Araghchi • 30 words • 0.0% coverageIslamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC) • 44 words • 0.0% coverageIslamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC) • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 45 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageRo Khanna • 30 words • 0.0% coverageRo Khanna • 41 words • 0.0% coverageRo Khanna • 11 words • 0.0% coverageRo Khanna • 21 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Just Foreign Policy

100%flagged-word coverage
56 attributed words13% of attributed speech90% writer coverage
0%27.5%55.0%Indoctrination+51.8 ptsWriter: 0.0%Just Foreign Policy: 51.8%51.8%Politically Left Leaning B+24.7 ptsWriter: 23.6%Just Foreign Policy: 48.2%48.2%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.