The United States’ latest military strikes against Iran have reignited a long-running constitutional debate in Washington, DC: who really has the authority to bring a nation to war. President Donald Trump’s decision to launch a joint military campaign against Iran alongside Israel without prior approval from Congress has drawn criticism from lawyers and lawmakers who say the operation may be “illegal” under US domestic law and reflects decades of expanding presidential war powers.
Read also | Israel Attacks Iran LIVE: Trump Claims ‘Khamenei Is Dead’
The episode underscores the lingering tensions rooted in America’s constitutional system—ones that have shaped American foreign policy for more than three-quarters of a century.
Why critics say Trump’s Iran strikes may violate US law
Under Article I of the US Constitution, Congress has the sole power to declare war, a power it has not formally exercised since World War II. Despite this limitation, successive presidents have ordered military operations abroad under a broader interpretation of executive power.
Trump acted unilaterally in launching the latest campaign against Iran, leading critics to argue that the administration bypassed legislative oversight. Lawyers and lawmakers say the president’s Article II authority — which designates the president as commander-in-chief — is primarily intended to respond to immediate threats rather than launch sustained military campaigns.
Read also | What you should know about the Burj Al Arab Hotel: Dubai’s iconic luxury landmark
However, presidents have increasingly relied on sweeping interpretations of those powers, often citing national security concerns to justify military action without congressional approval.
Can Congress Really Stop Military Action?
Congress maintains mechanisms to challenge presidential military decisions, although they are politically and procedurally difficult to deploy.
Lawmakers can introduce so-called war powers resolutions, which require the president to seek authorization before continuing hostilities. Several members of Congress have already pushed for a vote on legislation aimed at limiting further military engagement with Iran.
Read also | FlightRadar24 starts showing error due to “unprecedented” volume
For such a resolution to take effect, it must pass both the Senate and the House of Representatives. The president can then veto the measure, forcing Congress to secure a two-thirds majority in both chambers to override the veto — a threshold rarely reached in a deeply polarized political environment.
Driver of Conflict: US and Israeli Attacks on Iran
The United States and Israel launched coordinated strikes targeting Iran’s top commanders and political leaders, including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, in what officials described as an effort to destabilize the regime.
Trump said in a video statement: “We will destroy their missiles and raze their missile industry to the ground.”
The White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment after criticism of the operation’s legality.
Read also | Insurance costs soar after Iranian attacks on vessels in Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz
Trump had speculated about the possibility of strikes for weeks, citing support for Iranian protesters, concerns about Tehran’s nuclear ambitions and a broader desire for regime change. The administration also ordered a significant buildup of troops in the region ahead of the attacks.
Who can declare war under the US Constitution?
The Constitution grants Congress the exclusive power to declare war under Article I. However, lawmakers have gradually interpreted that provision to allow presidents to deploy troops into “hostile conditions” without a formal declaration if the United States is attacked or Congress authorizes force through legislation.
The country has not issued an official declaration of war since 1942, during World War II.
Presidents instead argue that they have broad operational authority as commanders in chief, especially when military action is considered time-sensitive.
“Congress is not fast. It’s slow, it’s deliberative,” said historian Julian Zelizer.
“Sometimes the president has to be more nimble and send in troops when the president believes they are necessary.”
A 75-year model of presidents bypassing the US Congress
Trump’s actions follow a long historical pattern of presidents of both political parties authorizing military force without the express approval of Congress.
The precedent dates back to 1950, when President Harry Truman sent US troops into South Korea, describing the intervention as an “international police operation” that did not require congressional authorization. The Korean War remains what former diplomat Scott Anderson called the “high-water mark” that presidents cite to justify the unilateral use of force.
Read also | US and Israel launch a major attack on Iran: Why is World War 3 trending on X?
Cold War operations further expanded the executive precedent, including the Bay of Pigs invasion under President John Kennedy and the secret bombing of Cambodia ordered by President Richard Nixon.
In 1989, President George HW Bush invaded Panama to detain Manuel Noriega without prior approval from Congress.
Post-9/11 Authorization and the Extension of Executive Power
Modern presidents have often relied on the 2001 and 2002 Authorizations for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), which were passed after the 9/11 attacks, to justify operations far beyond their original scope.
Congress hasn’t passed a new AUMF since 2002, yet Presidents Barack Obama, Donald Trump, and Joe Biden have collectively authorized military action in at least ten countries.
For example, the Obama administration justified the 2011 intervention in Libya as a “limited” mission conducted in the national interest that ultimately contributed to the fall of Muammar Gaddafi.
Read also | How might the Indian stock market, gold and silver prices react if Israel attacks Iran?
Obama also sent troops to Syria to fight ISIS without new congressional approval after lawmakers failed to vote on a proposed strike following chemical weapons attacks by the Assad government.
Critics say such decisions illustrate how presidents have stretched post-9/11 legal frameworks far beyond counterterrorism goals.
Why the US Congress often avoids confrontation
Political incentives often discourage lawmakers from directly challenging presidential military decisions.
“There’s a long history of presidents dealing with these situations. Many members of Congress like to wash themselves of that responsibility, even if they lose a little bit of credit,” Zelizer said.
Allowing presidents to take responsibility for military outcomes can shield lawmakers from political fallout, even if it weakens Congress’ authority over war powers.
