In sticking to a presidential trend set over many decades, President Donald Trump moved ahead with military strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities on June 21, without awaiting Congressional approval. This move to safeguard the nation promptly led to uprise among a small faction across party lines in Congress. It’s clear to see, however, that the Commander-in-Chief carried out his constitutionally granted powers diligently in the interest of national and global security.
Opposing voices piped up to criticize President Trump’s strategic move. Representative Jim Himes, D-Conn., and the leading figure on the House Intelligence Committee, argued that the strikes were in breach of the Constitution. However, this viewpoint, while vocal, didn’t hold weight for many considering the grave implications of nuclear threats and the President’s prevailing power to act as Commander in Chief.
One detractor was Senator Adam Schiff, D-Calif., who suggested that without concrete proof that Iran was on the verge of building a nuclear weapon, and without approval from Congress, the strike should not have been ordered. This viewpoint attempts to overlook the strategic imperatives in maintaining peace and undercutting threats posed by a possibly nuclear-armed Iran.
In the run-up to the strikes, Senator Tim Kaine, D-Va., and Representative Thomas Massie, R-Ky., proposed resolutions that were oddly out of sync with the urgency of the situation, insisting on congressional approval for an Iran strike. Upon the completion of the operation, Massie vocally disagreed with the Administration’s actions, a stance found by the majority to be imminently wary of taking necessary defense measures.
Much contrary to this minority belief, officials from the Trump administration maintained their stand on the completely constitutional nature of the strikes. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, on June 22, elaborated on how the Trump administration met the notification requirements of the War Powers Act, signifying members of Congress were informed promptly once the operation had concluded.
Vice President JD Vance made it clear that President Trump utilized his power judiciously to halt the expansion of weapons of mass destruction. The VP emphasized that the surgical strike was a measure meant to deter a nuclear threat, not an initiation of war. ‘We aren’t at war with Iran, but with Iran’s nuclear plans’, Vice President Vance succinctly clarified, pacifying the concerns of many in the nation.
The Trump administration’s disagreement with people like Massie and Kaine is well-alleged, and it’s still uncertain how their resolutions will fare; if voted on, if passed, or if the President would veto their passage in republican-held chambers. But these questions may not even lead to an actionable outcome, given the overriding authorities when it comes to war powers.
As detailed in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, Congress enjoys the right to declare war, yet this power has seldom been exercised since the onset of the Second World War. Over the years, Presidents have routinely deployed military forces under their constitutional purview, thus bypassing formal war declarations.
The War Powers Resolution of 1973, enacted over President Nixon’s veto, requires the President to report to Congress within 48 hours of introducing armed forces into conflict and cease the use of U.S. military in 60 days, unless Congress approves differently. If not approved, and the President perceives an emergency, an extra 30 days will be given to conclude operations. This rule, while present, does not trump the inherent powers of a president in urgent matters of national defense.
Modern Presidents have used ‘authorization for use of military force’ as a legislative device that equates to a war declaration approving ‘efforts to thwart any future acts of international terrorism against the United States.’ This system of approval has been followed by several Presidents before Trump, including Reagan, both Bushes, and Clinton in various international conflicts.
The relevance of the post-9/11 authorization remains apparent even today, 24 years later; the directive has provided extensive sovereignty for Presidents to guard against a wide range of terrorist threats. However, a strange 66-30 bipartisan vote in Senate attempted to overturn it in 2023, a move that did not even find concurrence in the House.
In the case of President Trump’s decisive action against the Iranian nuclear threat, a fresh change was observed. Reports state that top republican leaders in Congress were notified ahead of the attack; however, the Democrats were reportedly kept out of the loop.
Himes, a Democrat, purportedly learned about the strike post-operation. This deviation from a long-standing practice of notifying the ‘Gang of Eight’, which comprises the top Democrat and Republican in both the House and Senate, along with the top members from both parties on the intelligence committees of each chambers, has garnered some attention.
This approach, however, might be indicative of the pressing necessity of the operation, which was targeted at particularly sensitive covert action programs. As stipulated by federal law, these actions, by essence, need to meet certain confidentiality requirements. Nonetheless, the crucial factor remains that President Trump steered the course of action towards a secure and nuclear-free world.