There’s been quite a buzz since the recent military action against Iran began. Some voices, like Congressman Thomas Massie, have already labeled it unconstitutional. Yet, historically, this kind of unilateral action has favored presidential power, despite a clear expectation to involve Congress in such decisions.
Honestly, I understand the frustration people have about Congress not declaring war before such operations. I mean, I’ve been on that side myself, advocating for more congressional oversight. But courts have typically sided with the president on these issues, allowing them to carry out strikes without full approval from Congress.
According to Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, the President is the Commander-in-Chief. However, there’s also Article I, Section 8 which gives Congress the authority to declare war. The last time Congress officially declared war was during World War II. Since then, it seems like Congress and the courts have been okay with resolutions that substitute for actual declarations, which opens the door for unilateral military actions.
President Trump has indeed referred to the recent operation as a “war” and emphasized that it’s more than just a limited strike.
This attack is likely to reignite discussions surrounding the War Powers Resolution (WPR) of 1973, which demands the president inform Congress within 48 hours of committing U.S. forces to hostilities unless Congress has declared war. Moreover, it requires that military operations must wrap up within 60 days unless Congress gives the green light.
It’s worth noting that there was a secret briefing recently involving a select group of senators which might have hinted at this operation. Secretary of State Marco Rubio confirmed he had briefed those senators on the matter.
The WPR states that the president must consult with Congress before deploying U.S. forces into hostilities or situations that clearly suggest imminent hostilities. When it comes to using this authority, it can only be done under specific emergencies, such as a declaration of war or an attack on the U.S. or its armed forces.
President Trump justified the operation by citing actions taken by Iran and its proxies against U.S. interests and allies. Iran is also known to be a state sponsor of terrorism and is currently engaged in nuclear weapon development, disregarding international demands. Recently, the International Atomic Energy Agency reported that Iran has restricted access to its facilities again.
In the past, presidents have typically exercised this power based on a somewhat ambiguous standard, much like how military actions were taken in Bosnia and Libya under Democrats.
There’s also a bit of contradiction here. For example, when Obama launched the Libya attack, there wasn’t much backlash from the Democratic side. While I was advocating for those who opposed that undeclared war, Obama, similar to Trump now, insisted that Congressional approval wasn’t necessary for targeted military actions aimed at regime change. People like then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were actually praised for their decisive actions during that period.
Critics often refer to the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) to assert limits on presidential military actions. This goes back quite a while, even to the early 1800s during conflicts with France.
The 2001 AUMF allowed the president to use force against anyone tied to the September 11 attacks. Similarly, the 2002 AUMF permitted force to be used to protect U.S. national security from threats posed by Iraq. Presidents have often stretched these AUMFs to address new threats, even geographically beyond initial boundaries.
A report from the Trump administration in 2018 stated that the 2002 AUMF does not have geographic restrictions.
Obama, Biden, and Trump have all invoked the 2002 AUMF to justify past military actions in Syria, with Biden also targeting Iraq and Yemen. Interestingly, while Biden has used the 2002 AUMF for military strikes, he previously called for its repeal.
As for the current administration, it will likely consult with Congress about these recent actions. Congress might push to restrict the operation in the days to come. Yet, given how quickly things can change, many lawmakers seem to be waiting for initial results—and honestly, polling data—regarding public opinion on the attack. These types of military operations can extend over days or even weeks, and the longer it goes on, the more pressure for Congressional involvement could build.
Ultimately, it appears President Trump is operating within powers frequently cited by past presidents, including those from the Democratic party, to initiate significant military actions abroad. With history backing him, he seems to be navigating these initial strikes with a sense of precedent on his side.
