President Donald Trump’s recent order to bomb Iranian nuclear sites has reignited a major constitutional battle over who holds the power to take the country to war.
The strikes were launched without Congress being consulted or approving military action. The White House claims Trump acted within his rights under Article II of the Constitution, which gives the president authority as commander in chief to direct U.S. forces abroad when national interests are at stake.
A former senior U.S. official told CNN, “The president is clearly well within his Article II powers here. End of story.” But critics across the political spectrum say that’s not how the Constitution works.
No Green Light from Congress:
The Constitution gives Congress the exclusive power to declare war. There was no such vote in this case, and no clear evidence of an immediate threat to justify unilateral action.
“This is a large enough scale action that I think it’s likely that it should be considered a war,” said Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University. “Therefore, it requires congressional authorization.”
He pointed to the War Powers Resolution of 1973, passed after the Vietnam War to rein in presidential military actions. “The War Powers Act requires advance consultation with Congress, ‘whenever possible,’ before entering US troops into hostilities,” Somin said. “Here, I think it pretty obviously was possible, and it also pretty obviously wasn’t done.”
Was There a Threat?
The Trump administration hasn’t provided details on an imminent threat. That’s a key standard under both the Constitution and the War Powers Act.
“This isn’t some technical rulemaking,” said Chris Anders of the ACLU. “It literally is one of the enumerated powers” of Congress. He added: “The use of bombing runs against facilities that have been standing there for years… were not about to be part of a sudden attack on the United States.”
A Justice Department official said bombing “three nuclear sites” didn’t require congressional approval, though they admitted a longer conflict might.
Presidential Power—And Its Limits
Presidents from both parties have launched strikes without congressional approval: Obama in Libya, Bush in Panama, Trump in Syria. But critics say that doesn’t make it legal.
“He’s basically repeating the abuses of a number of previous administrations, most notably Obama, with the 2011 Libya war,” said Somin.
The Trump administration consulted lawyers across multiple agencies, but insiders say it relied more on its own legal team and past memos that favor broad executive power.
In 2018, the Office of Legal Counsel defended similar strikes in Syria, saying threats to U.S. interests can justify limited military action even without a declaration of war.
Congress Kept in the Dark
Top Republicans were briefed before the strikes. Democrats were not. Congress was out of session, and many lawmakers said they were blindsided.
“There was no imminent threat to the United States, which was what would authorize that,” said Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY). “We haven’t been briefed. They should have called us all back.”
Massie and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) have introduced a resolution to reassert Congress’s authority over war. Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA) said Senate leadership is pushing for a vote so every lawmaker must declare: Should the U.S. be at war with Iran?
“It should have been declarations of war,” Massie said of past conflicts, “but at least they did an Authorization of Use of Military Force. We haven’t had that. This has been turned upside down.”
No Clear Path to Accountability
Legal action against the president is unlikely. Courts have generally refused to step into war powers disputes, saying they’re fights between the executive and legislative branches.
“This is the basic question of constitutional authority,” said John Bolton, Trump’s former national security adviser. “If they were to bring a lawsuit, the courts would not intervene.”
Speaker of the House Mike Johnson defended Trump’s actions, calling the strikes “necessary, limited, and targeted,” and consistent with past precedent.
Echoes of Iraq
Some officials are warning that the lack of transparency resembles the lead-up to the Iraq War, when false intelligence about weapons of mass destruction shaped U.S. policy.
“We are in yellowcake uranium-land,” said a former national security official. “Congress should be asking questions about what intelligence and what legal findings they did before taking this escalatory action.”
For years, administrations have stretched old war authorizations far beyond their original intent. Stephen Vladeck, a law professor at Georgetown, said the real issue is congressional inaction.
“The only meaningful check on presidential abuses of the war powers has been pushback from Congress,” he said. “But that was when Congress took its constitutional and institutional responsibilities seriously.”
What’s Next
Lawmakers still have time to act. They can hold public hearings, demand answers, or block funding for unauthorized military operations.
Chris Anders of the ACLU said: “One advantage that comes to the executive branch when it goes to Congress and asks for authorization [is] there’s a clear examination of what the United States is getting into, so there’s much more of a national buy-in.”
“That is part of the genius of the way the Constitution was set up.”
Whether Congress now steps up—or allows another war without a vote—remains to be seen.
