Once upon a time, Congress took its constitutional responsibilities quite seriously. Nowadays, it seems to function more as a cheerleader for President Trump. This shift became particularly evident last week when he acted unilaterally to escalate tensions into a potential conflict.
The effectiveness of the attacks on Iran’s nuclear sites is still being debated—it’s unclear if they actually served their intended purpose—but one thing is certain: Trump has acted beyond his authority by not seeking Congressional approval to engage in military action.
Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) brushed off concerns about the president’s constitutional overreach, pointing to the powers granted under Article 2. While that might sound convincing to some, it’s a fundamental misinterpretation of the Constitution.
When the framers gathered in Philadelphia back in 1787, they envisioned Congress as the body that would declare war. Massachusetts Representative Elbridge Gerry even suggested that the term “make” be exchanged for a broader “declare.” He argued that the president should have the ability to respond to sudden attacks.
This may seem like a dry constitutional debate, but in the early 1970s, Congress held numerous hearings regarding the War Powers Act. The law clearly indicates that Trump should have consulted Congress before taking military action against Iran.
It’s undeniable that Congress has allowed its war powers to decline over the years. The U.S. military is now deployed globally, and while the president does have a duty to protect them, this power has been extensively exercised since the 9/11 attacks, which granted the president permission to pursue non-state actors wherever they operate.
When President George W. Bush sought to invade Iraq in 2002, he did ask Congress for authorization. Although many lawmakers now regret that decision, it was made based on faulty intelligence regarding Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction.
President Obama, on the other hand, initiated military actions in Libya in 2011 without Congressional approval, claiming the U.S. role was merely supportive of NATO forces. He overlooked legal requirements to seek authorization in situations where hostilities might occur.
Reagan’s deployment of Marines to Lebanon in 1982 as part of a peacekeeping effort also faced issues. Despite changing circumstances, engagement rules remained static, leading to catastrophic outcomes.
In 1986, Reagan sent a Navy task force to respond to Libyan threats but altered the engagement rules to avoid consulting Congress, prioritizing military convenience over constitutional obligations.
It seems that neither Trump nor his advisors even contemplated seeking Congressional authority for an attack on Iran. Reports indicate senior Republicans were informed only after B-2 bombers were en route.
While the administration fulfilled its obligation to notify Congress post-action per the War Powers Act, significant details were missed, only learned through media reports.
Trump appeared to revel in the uncertainty he created about the U.S. position regarding Iran, stating he would decide on military involvement within a couple of weeks. “I might do that. I might not do that. No one knows what I’m trying to do,” he said.
Now that it’s over, he claims to have “decapitated” Iran’s nuclear capabilities, but it raises questions—what does that even mean? I suppose I’m unsure myself. Recent leaked intelligence suggests his claims might not hold up.
The U.S. and Iran were in negotiations aimed at curbing Iran’s nuclear ambitions—Trump even gave Tehran a 60-day deadline to eliminate its enrichment activities. Yet, sessions were planned shortly after that deadline.
There are credible reports indicating concerns about Iran’s enrichment levels—up to 60%—but that’s still short of the 90% needed for weapons-grade material. There’s no evidence that Iranian leaders have made definitive plans to pursue such capabilities.
A recent International Atomic Energy Agency report indicated Iran’s efforts didn’t conform to non-proliferation obligations but also validated the reliability of their monitoring processes.
Neither the IAEA report nor U.S. intelligence assessments pointed to any imminent threat to the U.S. While the door to diplomacy remains open post-attack, there’s a risk that Iran could choose to pursue nuclear weaponry.
Perhaps this situation will prompt Congress to reconsider the considerable power it has delegated to a single individual. If such violations of constitutional norms continue without reflection, what might Trump— or any future president—do with this unchecked authority?
Congress was designed to supervise military actions and ensure that war powers are appropriately checked. It shouldn’t exist merely as a fallback for an unrestrained president.
