Debate erupts over presidential war powers following Trump's bombing order on Iran
Shreeaa Rathi | TIMESOFINDIA.COM | Jun 24, 2025, 16:32 IST
( Image credit : TOI.in, TOIGLOBAL )
The recent order from Donald Trump to target Iranian nuclear facilities has sparked a vigorous conversation about the extent of presidential authority in military engagements. While the administration claims its rights under Article II of the Constitution, legal scholars argue that only Congress holds the power to initiate war.
President Donald Trump's order to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities has sparked a debate over the extent of presidential war powers under the Constitution, specifically regarding the need for congressional approval. The administration is asserting the president's authority under Article II of the Constitution, while legal experts and lawmakers are pointing to Congress's sole power to declare war and the absence of an imminent threat to the United States. This action has renewed discussions about the War Powers Resolution and the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches in matters of military action.
The administration is relying on the president’s authority under Article II of the Constitution, two senior administration officials told CNN, which says he has power to direct US military forces in engagements necessary to advance American national interests abroad. The White House counsel’s office and the Justice Department were both involved in the legal analysis for the strikes.
“The president is clearly well within his Article II powers here,” one former senior US official told CNN. “End of story.”
However, many legal experts and lawmakers disagree, citing the Constitution's provision that only Congress can declare war. They also note the absence of an Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) and a lack of an imminent threat to the United States.
In 1973, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution in response to the Vietnam War, seeking to limit presidential power in the use of military force.
“This is a large enough scale action that I think it’s likely that it should be considered a war, and not merely a small, severely limited strike. Therefore, it requires congressional authorization,” said Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University and a scholar at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank.
“The War Powers Act requires advance consultation with Congress, ‘whenever possible,’ before entering US troops into hostilities,” Somin added. “Here, I think it pretty obviously was possible, and it also pretty obviously wasn’t done.”
The Supreme Court's past rulings, which have been generous in approving Trump’s expansive use of power, have also contributed to the analysis, according to a senior White House official.
“This isn’t some technical rulemaking,” said Chris Anders, senior counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union. “It literally is one of the enumerated powers” of the Constitution.
James Madison argued in the Federalist Papers that the president can use force to "repel a sudden attack on the United States."
“If applied to Iran,” Anders said, it wouldn’t meet that test. “The use of bombing runs against facilities that have been standing there for years, perhaps decades, and were not about to be part of a sudden attack on the United States.”
A senior Justice Department official said if this conflict continues for an extended period, the administration may have to go to Congress for approval, but maintained that “bombing three nuclear sites” does not rise to the level of needing congressional approval. The official also noted the Trump administration has the support of senior House and Senate leaders.
Presidents of both parties have bypassed Congress for military action in the past. Examples include President George H.W. Bush’s actions in Panama, President Barack Obama’s air strikes in Libya, and Trump’s actions against Syria and Iran during his first term.
“The commander in chief can take actions to protect American interests around the world,” John Bolton, a former Trump national security adviser, told CNN. “We’ve seen Iran sponsor terrorism in Lebanon in 1983, we’ve seen it help arm militias in Iraq that have killed Americans with RPGs made in Iran,” Bolton said. “They’ve been threatening our forces in the region for years.”
Presidents have historically relied on legal experts from various agencies for advice before making major national security decisions. The Trump White House has reportedly relied less on these experts than previous administrations.
“While the United States is not the world’s policeman, as its power has grown, the breadth of its regional interests has expanded and threats to national interests posed by foreign disorder have increased,” the Office of Legal Counsel wrote in 2018 regarding air strikes against Syria.
“He’s basically repeating the abuses of a number of previous administrations, most notably Obama, with the 2011 Libya war,” Somin said. “But the bottom line is that this is a kind of abuse that’s not unprecedented, albeit that doesn’t make it right.”
Legal challenges to presidential war powers have often been unsuccessful, as courts are skeptical of who has the right to sue and whether such debates should be left for the political branches to address.
“This is the basic question of constitutional authority. If they were to bring a lawsuit, the courts would not intervene,” Bolton said. “This is a fight between the two branches.”
Despite bipartisan concerns, action from congressional leadership is needed to address the issue.
“The President fully respects the Article I power of Congress, and tonight’s necessary, limited, and targeted strike follows the history and tradition of similar military actions under presidents of both parties,” Johnson said in a social media post.
Republican Rep. Thomas Massie expressed surprise at the Speaker's statement.
“There was no imminent threat to the United States, which was what would authorize that. And I think that’s peculiar to hear that from the speaker of the House,” the Kentucky congressman said on CBS’ “Face the Nation.” “Look, Congress was on vacation last week when all this was happening. We haven’t been briefed. They should have called us all back.”
Massie and Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna are seeking to reassert Congress’ authority over military action with a co-sponsored war powers resolution. Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is pushing for a vote "as soon as possible" on a resolution so "all members of the Senate have to declare whether or not the US should be at war with Iran.”
US actions in Iraq and Afghanistan in the 2000s were "at least" debated in Congress at the time with requests from then-President George W. Bush, Massie noted.
“It should have been declarations of war, but at least they did an Authorization of Use of Military Force,” Massie said. “We haven’t had that. This has been turned upside down.”
Some lawmakers and legal experts are drawing parallels to the second Iraq War, urging a review of the intelligence used to justify the action.
“We are in yellowcake uranium-land,” a former national security official said, referring to botched intelligence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. “Congress should be asking questions about what intelligence and what legal findings they did before taking this escalatory action.”
The 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force, which authorized the Iraq War, has been repeatedly stretched by both Democratic and Republican administrations as legal authority for military action in locations outside of Iraq.
“The problem is that, historically, the only meaningful check on presidential abuses of the war powers has been pushback from Congress,” said Stephen Vladeck, CNN legal analyst and professor at Georgetown University Law Center. “But that was when Congress took its constitutional and institutional responsibilities seriously.”
The ACLU’s Anders suggests public hearings to examine the Trump administration’s military and legal justifications. Congress could also restrict funds for such actions without its approval.
“One advantage that comes to the executive branch when it goes to Congress and asks for authorization that there’s a clear examination of what the United States is getting into, so there’s much more of a national buy-in,” Anders said. “That is part of the genius of the way the Constitution was set up.”
The administration is relying on the president’s authority under Article II of the Constitution, two senior administration officials told CNN, which says he has power to direct US military forces in engagements necessary to advance American national interests abroad. The White House counsel’s office and the Justice Department were both involved in the legal analysis for the strikes.
“The president is clearly well within his Article II powers here,” one former senior US official told CNN. “End of story.”
However, many legal experts and lawmakers disagree, citing the Constitution's provision that only Congress can declare war. They also note the absence of an Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) and a lack of an imminent threat to the United States.
In 1973, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution in response to the Vietnam War, seeking to limit presidential power in the use of military force.
“This is a large enough scale action that I think it’s likely that it should be considered a war, and not merely a small, severely limited strike. Therefore, it requires congressional authorization,” said Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University and a scholar at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank.
“The War Powers Act requires advance consultation with Congress, ‘whenever possible,’ before entering US troops into hostilities,” Somin added. “Here, I think it pretty obviously was possible, and it also pretty obviously wasn’t done.”
The Supreme Court's past rulings, which have been generous in approving Trump’s expansive use of power, have also contributed to the analysis, according to a senior White House official.
“This isn’t some technical rulemaking,” said Chris Anders, senior counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union. “It literally is one of the enumerated powers” of the Constitution.
James Madison argued in the Federalist Papers that the president can use force to "repel a sudden attack on the United States."
“If applied to Iran,” Anders said, it wouldn’t meet that test. “The use of bombing runs against facilities that have been standing there for years, perhaps decades, and were not about to be part of a sudden attack on the United States.”
A senior Justice Department official said if this conflict continues for an extended period, the administration may have to go to Congress for approval, but maintained that “bombing three nuclear sites” does not rise to the level of needing congressional approval. The official also noted the Trump administration has the support of senior House and Senate leaders.
Presidents of both parties have bypassed Congress for military action in the past. Examples include President George H.W. Bush’s actions in Panama, President Barack Obama’s air strikes in Libya, and Trump’s actions against Syria and Iran during his first term.
“The commander in chief can take actions to protect American interests around the world,” John Bolton, a former Trump national security adviser, told CNN. “We’ve seen Iran sponsor terrorism in Lebanon in 1983, we’ve seen it help arm militias in Iraq that have killed Americans with RPGs made in Iran,” Bolton said. “They’ve been threatening our forces in the region for years.”
Presidents have historically relied on legal experts from various agencies for advice before making major national security decisions. The Trump White House has reportedly relied less on these experts than previous administrations.
“While the United States is not the world’s policeman, as its power has grown, the breadth of its regional interests has expanded and threats to national interests posed by foreign disorder have increased,” the Office of Legal Counsel wrote in 2018 regarding air strikes against Syria.
“He’s basically repeating the abuses of a number of previous administrations, most notably Obama, with the 2011 Libya war,” Somin said. “But the bottom line is that this is a kind of abuse that’s not unprecedented, albeit that doesn’t make it right.”
Legal challenges to presidential war powers have often been unsuccessful, as courts are skeptical of who has the right to sue and whether such debates should be left for the political branches to address.
“This is the basic question of constitutional authority. If they were to bring a lawsuit, the courts would not intervene,” Bolton said. “This is a fight between the two branches.”
Despite bipartisan concerns, action from congressional leadership is needed to address the issue.
“The President fully respects the Article I power of Congress, and tonight’s necessary, limited, and targeted strike follows the history and tradition of similar military actions under presidents of both parties,” Johnson said in a social media post.
Republican Rep. Thomas Massie expressed surprise at the Speaker's statement.
“There was no imminent threat to the United States, which was what would authorize that. And I think that’s peculiar to hear that from the speaker of the House,” the Kentucky congressman said on CBS’ “Face the Nation.” “Look, Congress was on vacation last week when all this was happening. We haven’t been briefed. They should have called us all back.”
Massie and Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna are seeking to reassert Congress’ authority over military action with a co-sponsored war powers resolution. Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is pushing for a vote "as soon as possible" on a resolution so "all members of the Senate have to declare whether or not the US should be at war with Iran.”
US actions in Iraq and Afghanistan in the 2000s were "at least" debated in Congress at the time with requests from then-President George W. Bush, Massie noted.
“It should have been declarations of war, but at least they did an Authorization of Use of Military Force,” Massie said. “We haven’t had that. This has been turned upside down.”
Some lawmakers and legal experts are drawing parallels to the second Iraq War, urging a review of the intelligence used to justify the action.
“We are in yellowcake uranium-land,” a former national security official said, referring to botched intelligence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. “Congress should be asking questions about what intelligence and what legal findings they did before taking this escalatory action.”
The 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force, which authorized the Iraq War, has been repeatedly stretched by both Democratic and Republican administrations as legal authority for military action in locations outside of Iraq.
“The problem is that, historically, the only meaningful check on presidential abuses of the war powers has been pushback from Congress,” said Stephen Vladeck, CNN legal analyst and professor at Georgetown University Law Center. “But that was when Congress took its constitutional and institutional responsibilities seriously.”
The ACLU’s Anders suggests public hearings to examine the Trump administration’s military and legal justifications. Congress could also restrict funds for such actions without its approval.
“One advantage that comes to the executive branch when it goes to Congress and asks for authorization that there’s a clear examination of what the United States is getting into, so there’s much more of a national buy-in,” Anders said. “That is part of the genius of the way the Constitution was set up.”