The United States’ deep involvement in the 12-day-old Israel-Iran war, which may not be over despite a declared ceasefire, has reignited an age-old clash between Congress and the president: Who has the power to launch a U.S. military offensive – if not outright war – against another country?
The debate became especially charged this past weekend, when the U.S. bombed Iranian nuclear facilities in support of its ally, Israel, without advance authorization from Congress. At its root lies an inherent conflict within the U.S. Constitution, which empowers only Congress to declare war but makes the president commander in chief of the armed forces.
The Trump administration briefed top Republican lawmakers and the Senate Democratic leader on Saturday evening before the U.S. bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities early Sunday morning local time. But it wasn’t a request for authorization or a formal declaration of war; it was a heads-up. Meanwhile, top Democrats in Congress said Tuesday that they were still unclear about the president’s bombing decision and strategy.
Why We Wrote This
The Iran strikes raise questions about whether President Donald Trump’s actions align with the intent of the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution, but Republicans mostly stick with the president.
“This Trump is different from Trump 1.0 – more ready to use military dominance, more willing to assert his authority by military actions domestically and internationally,” says Harold Koh, a Yale Law School professor and former legal adviser to the State Department during the Obama administration.
“Congress has to make a serious effort to assert its authority here, or he’ll just stop bothering to consult,” Professor Koh adds.
The last time Congress made a formal declaration of war was in 1941, when it entered World War II after America was attacked at Pearl Harbor. Under more recent presidents, a legal mechanism called an Authorization for Use of Military Force – a joint resolution by Congress that authorizes the president to use the U.S. armed forces in specific military action – has served as the functional equivalent.
In the run-up to the current U.S.-Iran hostilities, President Donald Trump kept the world guessing over whether he would join Israel’s effort to neutralize what it saw as an imminent nuclear threat from Iran. The answer became clear only after the American mission was finished, U.S. bombers had left Iranian airspace, and President Trump followed up with a statement on his social media site.
A cloak of secrecy may have been necessary to pull off the attack. But with the prospect of continuing war, including potentially more Iranian retaliatory strikes on U.S. bases in the Middle East, debate is raging over Congress’ role as a coequal branch of government.
Views on the Constitution, split by party
At a time of intense political polarization, most members of Congress fall along party lines. One outlier, Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, responded bluntly on the social platform X to Mr. Trump’s announcement Saturday night of a “very successful attack” on three Iranian sites: “This is not Constitutional,” he wrote.
On the flip side, Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson stated Tuesday that the strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities were “clearly within President Trump’s Article II powers” in the U.S. Constitution as commander in chief. Therefore, the speaker added, it is the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which requires the president to win congressional consent before committing U.S. forces to combat, that is unconstitutional.
Some Democrats are equally adamant that the legislative branch is the only branch authorized to commit U.S. forces to combat.
“The Constitution is clear. Only Congress has the power to declare war,” Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts told the Monitor. “The president of the United States does not have authority under the Constitution to attack another nation, absent an emergency and a need to protect American troops, American citizens, or the homeland.”
Still, the Democrats are not moving in lockstep, with some expressing frustration that more have not signed on to resolutions drawn up in the Senate by Democrat Tim Kaine of Virginia and in the House by Representative Massie and Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna of California.
Francis Chung/Politico/AP
The Massie-Khanna measure would block further U.S. military involvement in the war, but on Monday, Mr. Massie said he would withdraw the resolution if there was a ceasefire.
Democratic Reps. Jim Himes, Gregory Meeks, and Adam Smith introduced a separate resolution Monday to cease hostilities in Iran absent congressional authorization. Representative Meeks told the Monitor that the new resolution closes a “loophole” in the Massie-Khanna resolution that, he says, would have prevented the U.S. from defending allies if they were attacked.
In addition, a handful of progressive House Democrats – including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York – called for Mr. Trump’s impeachment over the bombing of Iran, but House leadership has sidestepped the suggestion.
After both Israel and Iran announced a ceasefire, they continued to attack each other’s territory.
Mr. Trump, speaking to reporters early Tuesday as he left the White House for a NATO summit in The Hague, used profanity – rare for a president to do publicly – when he expressed his frustration about the war.
“They don’t know what the [redacted] they’re doing,” said the president, who had campaigned last year on ending “forever wars.”
Awaiting news of Iran’s nuclear program
Also delaying action on Capitol Hill was the postponement of classified briefings on the war for members of both houses of Congress by administration officials. One key question is the state of Iran’s nuclear program after the U.S. bombing. The Senate briefing has been rescheduled for Thursday, while the timing of the House briefing remains unclear.
Senator Kaine, who sponsored a War Powers Resolution to bar Mr. Trump from taking further military action in Iran without congressional approval, said Monday that he expected the briefing would be an important factor in some members’ decisions.
Republican Sen. Mike Rounds of South Dakota, speaking to the Monitor, says that Congress’ slowness to act argues in favor of leaving war decisions to the president.
“I think the Founding Fathers laid this out correctly,” Senator Rounds says. “We have a commander in chief. You cannot have Congress today holding up what would be a very important item of protecting our national interests based upon the debate speed at which Congress moves.”
“We can debate it afterwards,” he adds.
Still, lining up congressional support in advance of military action can strengthen a president’s hand, says Curtis Bradley, a law professor at the University of Chicago and an expert on foreign relations law.
“Sometimes presidents are stronger if they can show adversaries, ‘I have not just me behind this; I have the full legislative branch to represent the American people,’” Professor Bradley says.
