Democrats who criticized President Trump for launching attacks on Iran without Congressional approval are now facing an awkward reality—Democrats have been doing the same thing for years.
From Bill Clinton to Barack Obama and, more recently, Joe Biden, every modern Democratic president has deployed U.S. troops in various military operations abroad, targeting places like Bosnia, Syria, Libya, and Yemen. While they did seek Congressional consent in some cases, they often didn’t get it.
This history complicates the current debate among Democrats, who argue that Trump violated the Constitution by acting on his own when he targeted three Iranian nuclear sites last weekend.
Republican leaders aren’t missing a beat. They support military action against Iran as necessary for national security and back Trump’s authority to act unilaterally. They cite examples from Clinton, Obama, and Biden to bolster their arguments.
“Since World War II, there have been over 125 military operations—from Korea to Iraq—that occurred without a formal declaration of war from Congress,” House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) told the press following the attack. “Presidents from both parties have frequently exercised this authority.”
Johnson highlighted recent actions taken by the current Democratic administration, noting Biden’s orders for strikes against terrorist groups in Yemen, Syria, and Iraq. He reminded that Obama had a lengthy bombing campaign in Libya, and Clinton targeted parts of the former Yugoslavia during the Bosnian War.
“All of these actions took place unilaterally without prior Congressional approval,” Johnson added.
This backdrop pushes Democrats to reflect on their own past while they demand that all military operations in Iran receive Congressional authorization. Some recognize this inconsistency, voicing regret that Congress hasn’t been firmer in asserting its authority over military actions.
“Just because something was wrong in the past doesn’t mean it’s not wrong now,” said Rep. Ted Liu, a former Air Force lawyer and current vice-chairman of the House Democrats. “The Constitution clearly states that only Congress has the power to declare war. It’s a bipartisan concern, and we are giving too much power to the executive branch.”
Rep. Pete Aguilar (Calif.), chairman of the Democratic Caucus, expressed a similar sentiment. He noted how political divides have occasionally diminished Congress’s willingness to assert its power in military matters, particularly when the presidency and Congress are held by opposing parties.
“That part is disappointing. Maybe I’ve let some opportunities slip by,” Aguilar admitted.
“But that doesn’t mean we’re looking the other way now,” he quickly added. “We have to stand up for our authority and advocate for our members whenever we can.”
The Constitution delineates specific roles for both Congress and the President in military operations. Article 1 empowers Congress to declare war, while Article 2 designates the President as the “commander-in-chief” responsible for executing military actions authorized by Congress.
However, historically, this balance has tilted heavily in favor of the executive branch. Congress last officially declared war in 1941, after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Since that time, presidents have largely taken control of military decisions.
In 1973, during the Vietnam War, Congress attempted to reaffirm its powers by passing the War Powers Act, which president Nixon vetoed (though Congress overrode him). This law mandates that the president must “consult with Congress before deploying U.S. forces into hostilities,” but it doesn’t require formal approval.
With tensions rising in the Middle East, lawmakers from both parties are trying to limit military involvement, pushing a resolution that would require Trump to seek explicit Congressional consent before engaging militarily in Iran. This effort is backed by key Democrats like Gregory Meeks (NY), Jim Himes (CT), and Adam Smith (WA), as well as Republicans Tom Massie (KY) and Anna Eshoo (CA).
Supporters of this resolution are quick to acknowledge that the president has the authority to act unilaterally in emergencies, such as when the nation is under attack. However, they contend that no imminent threat from Iran justified Trump’s recent actions.
“The President has self-defense powers under Article II of the Constitution, but to meet that threshold, there must be an imminent risk of attack on an American or U.S. facility,” one committee member pointed out. “I haven’t seen evidence that would meet that standard.”
Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) echoed this sentiment, stating, “If our country is attacked, the President can act, but that wasn’t the case here; he should have consulted Congress.”
This puts Democrats in a tricky spot, especially given their past military interventions without seeking Congressional approval. For instance, in 1998, in response to terrorist bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, Clinton launched cruise missile strikes against Al-Qaeda bases in Sudan and Afghanistan and participated in NATO’s bombing campaign in the former Yugoslavia.
Obama drew criticism from liberals when he initiated military actions across several countries, including a significant operation in Libya in 2011. Though he sought Congressional approval for this, Congress failed to agree on any resolution, leaning instead on a 2001 authorization tied to the War on Terror.
Biden has followed suit, using military force against terrorist groups in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen.
Liu emphasized his ongoing opposition to Obama’s military actions without Congressional approval. “I made my stance clear when Obama sought permission to strike Syria. I believe Trump should also seek Congress’s approval for any action against Iran,” he stated. “My interpretation of the Constitution doesn’t change with the party of the presidency.”
Other Democrats are trying to narrow the focus back to current events. “We could fill a book with regrets over this under this dome. Let’s save that for later,” Aguilar quipped. “What’s critical now is how we plan to assert our constitutional authority.”
As the debate over war powers progresses, it may become moot. Just a week after the strike, Trump announced a ceasefire between Iran and Israel. If that holds, it could void some of the constitutional quarrels. Massie mentioned he wouldn’t push for a war powers vote if the ceasefire continues, while Johnson has dismissed any such resolution as unconstitutional. Meanwhile, Trump’s officials are expected to discuss nuclear disarmament with their Iranian counterparts later this week.
Still, many questions linger regarding the effectiveness of the strike in neutralizing Iran’s nuclear capabilities. Trump was asked if he would strike again if needed, and his response was succinct.
“No doubt about it. Absolutely,” he replied.
