Trump may go to war in Iran without Congress — and that's just the new normal

As President Trump weighs whether to attack Iran, the truth is, no one knows what he will do—and that uncertainty is exactly the point. But amid the chaos, one familiar question looms: What about Congress?
The pattern is now well-worn. A president — Democrat or Republican — considers the use of force. A bipartisan group of lawmakers demands a vote. The White House sidesteps congressional approval. And a handful of Members introduce War Powers Resolutions that go nowhere.
That cycle is already underway, with Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Representative Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) calling for Congress to reassert its constitutional role. As someone who served for years as a national security counsel to House leadership and the Foreign Affairs Committee, I believe that while Congress may still assert itself through symbolic War Powers Resolutions, it is highly unlikely to take another meaningful vote to authorize force — an unfortunate but predictable consequence of the Iraq War legacy.
The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war but leaves much else unsaid, and potential ambiguity results from the tension between this and the president's authority to give military orders as commander in chief. In response to the Vietnam quagmire, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution of 1973, establishing procedures to check unilateral presidential military action. The law created three primary levers: formal Authorizations for Use of Military Force, a 60-day deadline for presidential withdrawal unless Congress acts, and privileged resolutions to force floor votes on military engagements.
Every president since has sidestepped the War Powers Resolution's key enforcement mechanism — the 60-day clock — and Congress has largely acquiesced. Although lawmakers have passed resolutions demanding withdrawals — from U.S. involvement in Yemen (in 2019) and against Iran (in 2020), Congress hasn't authorized force in more than two decades.
Why has the authorization for the use of military force become a political third rail? Start with electoral incentives. Since President Obama defeated Hillary Clinton in 2008 — in part by tying her to the 2002 vote to authorize force in Iraq — lawmakers have learned that war authorizations can become long-lasting political liabilities, especially when military outcomes are uncertain.
The starkest example came in 2013. After dictator Bashar Assad used chemical weapons in Syria, Obama — under pressure from hawkish Republicans and Democrats demanding action — flipped the script. Rather than authorize strikes unilaterally, he asked Congress (cynically, in my view) to approve them. The political will predictably was absent. Public opposition was fierce. Calls to congressional offices ran 20 to 1 against intervention, and leadership declined to bring it to a vote.
Today, party leaders remain reluctant to expose internal divisions. There is no unified view in either caucus on Iran. Some Republicans urge military support for Israel, including strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. Others — MAGA-aligned isolationists and progressive Democrats alike — warn of entanglement in a wider regional war. The result is strange-bedfellow coalitions and a leadership class intent on keeping these debates behind closed doors, not on the House or Senate floor.
The deeper issue is structural. The presidency has evolved into a singular command center for U.S. foreign policy, especially since the New Deal era and the Supreme Court's recognition of the president as the nation's 'sole organ' in foreign affairs. The notion that 535 members of Congress should greenlight military operations seems increasingly anachronistic, particularly in moments of crisis, when speed and unity are at a premium.
Rather than vote on a new AUMF, Congress will likely continue to resort to procedural War Powers Resolutions — privileged measures that force votes but do not bind the president. These resolutions create cross-party alliances and make political statements, but they are speed bumps on the road to war, not stop signs.
Congress could attempt to cut off funding for military operations, but history suggests it will not. In both Kosovo (1999) and Libya (2011), Congress refused to authorize force but also declined to defund operations, effectively giving presidents free rein.
Congress is not powerless. It retains the ability to shape public opinion, rally bipartisan concern, and pressure the executive when policies go off the rails. But observers hoping for a formal vote on Iran should temper expectations. The era of meaningful congressional authorizations of force may be behind us. And the war powers debate, for now, will remain one fought on procedural margins, not through constitutional muscle.
Daniel Silverberg serves as a Managing Director at Capstone and a senior adjunct fellow at the Center for New American Security. From 2014-2021 he served as National Security Advisor to Rep. Steny Hoyer.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

New York Times

36 minutes ago

• New York Times

Live Updates: Israel and Iran Trade New Strikes on 9th Day of War

President Trump was angry. Earlier this month, Tulsi Gabbard, his director of national intelligence, had posted a three-and-half-minute video to social media describing her visit to Hiroshima, Japan, and outlining the horrors caused by the detonation of a nuclear weapon there 80 years ago. Speaking directly to the camera, Ms. Gabbard warned that the threat of nuclear war remained. 'As we stand here today, closer to the brink of nuclear annihilation than ever before,' she said, 'political elites and warmongers are carelessly fomenting fear and tension between nuclear powers.' Mr. Trump berated Ms. Gabbard for the video, according to two people briefed on the conversation. He said that her discussion of nuclear annihilation would scare people and that officials should not talk about it. Mr. Trump's displeasure with the video laid bare months of his skepticism of Ms. Gabbard and frustrations with her. The president and some administration officials viewed her overseas travel, as the video exemplified, as being as much about self-promotion of her political career as it was about the business of government, multiple officials said, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal dynamics of the administration. But the tensions surrounding Ms. Gabbard are now in the open, as Mr. Trump considers mounting a military strike on Iran. Ms. Gabbard, a critic of overseas entanglements, has privately raised concerns of a wider war. And on Friday Mr. Trump said 'she's wrong' when he was asked about her testimony in March that Iran had not decided to build a nuclear weapon. After the video was posted, the president also told Ms. Gabbard that he was disappointed in her, and wished she had used better judgment, according to one of the two people briefed on the conversation. He told Ms. Gabbard that he believed she was using her time working for him to set herself up for higher office. Mr. Trump told Ms. Gabbard that if she wanted to run for president, she should not be in the administration, one of the people briefed on the meeting said. Image Ms. Gabbard and her husband, Abraham Williams, at her swearing-in at the White House in February. Credit... Eric Lee/The New York Times While Ms. Gabbard is a former Democrat, her credentials as a critic of America's long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and as a skeptic of foreign military interventions appeal to Mr. Trump's base, and her views dovetail with those of some of his other advisers. Her supporters are openly advocating that the president keep her. 'The president needs someone who will give him the right intelligence information, whether he likes it or not,' said Daniel L. Davis, an analyst at the think tank Defense Priorities, which advocates a restrained foreign policy. 'If you put someone else in there, they might only tell him what he wants to hear.' Mr. Davis, a retired Army lieutenant colonel, was Ms. Gabbard's choice for a top intelligence role before criticism from Republicans over his skepticism of Israel's war in Gaza forced her to rescind the appointment. There is no question, officials said, that Ms. Gabbard's standing has been weakened and that she is embattled. But few in the administration want to see her depart. Some say she has people who like her, while others worry about who might replace her. Two officials said that Mr. Trump's anger over the video had faded and that they were back on better terms. Ms. Gabbard continues to brief the president regularly and speaks often to John Ratcliffe, the C.I.A. director, who held Ms. Gabbard's job in the first Trump administration, according to multiple officials. In a statement, the White House press office dismissed any notion she has been sidelined. Steven Cheung, a White House spokesman, said Mr. Trump had 'full confidence' in his national security team. 'D.N.I. Gabbard is an important member of the president's team and her work continues to serve him and this country well,' Mr. Cheung said. Ms. Gabbard was an aggressive supporter of Mr. Trump on the 2024 campaign trail. He and his top advisers valued her input, especially when Mr. Trump was preparing to debate Vice President Kamala Harris — whom Ms. Gabbard had memorably attacked in a Democratic primary debate in 2019. After the election, Mr. Trump quickly decided to nominate her for director of national intelligence. But from the beginning he made clear to associates that he harbored some doubts. Mr. Trump, according to associates, saw her as overly interested in her own success. Mr. Trump drew a contrast between Ms. Gabbard and the other former Democrat he named to his cabinet, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. 'Bobby's a star,' Mr. Trump told one associate. 'Tulsi? Tulsi wants to be a star.' Mr. Trump's implication was that unlike Mr. Kennedy, Ms. Gabbard did not have what it took to succeed in politics. Image Ms. Gabbard with Mr. Trump, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Tucker Carlson during a campaign event in Georgia in October. Credit... Kenny Holston/The New York Times And soon after her swearing-in, he began to complain about her effectiveness. At the same time, Mr. Trump — long mistrustful of the intelligence community — questioned whether there needed to be an Office of the Director of National Intelligence at all. A senior intelligence official said Ms. Gabbard had overseen a 25 percent cut in the size of her office. And Ms. Gabbard has repeatedly told people in the White House that she is willing to be the last director of national intelligence, according to an official. The office, Ms. Gabbard said, could be reabsorbed into the C.I.A., or become something akin to the National Security Council, a bare-bones oversight group. At least for a time, the kind of foreign policy restraint Ms. Gabbard favors appeared to gain traction this spring. In White House discussions about Israel and Iran, Ms. Gabbard raised the range of possible consequences of an Israeli strike against Iran, saying it could trigger a wider conflict that brought in the United States. Vice President JD Vance, at times also a skeptic of military intervention, made similar arguments and was among those who supported Mr. Trump's impulse to initially try to negotiate a deal with Iran. As the C.I.A. delivered intelligence reports that Israel intended to strike Iran regardless, Mr. Trump and senior aides became more publicly supportive of the Israeli campaign. Ms. Gabbard did not attend a key meeting at Camp David, where Mr. Ratcliffe presented assessments about Iran's nuclear program. Ms. Gabbard, according to officials, was on Army Reserve duty. Other people with knowledge of the matter have said she was not invited. (Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said Ms. Gabbard had met daily with Mr. Trump and his team.) Then on Tuesday, Mr. Trump contradicted Ms. Gabbard in public. After the Israeli strikes began, a journalist on Air Force One asked Mr. Trump about Ms. Gabbard's testimony in March that Iran had not decided to make a nuclear bomb. 'I don't care what she said,' Mr. Trump said. 'I think they were very close to having it.' He made similar comments on Friday. Image Mr. Trump, aboard Air Force One this week, contradicted Ms. Gabbard's assessment of Iran's nuclear program. Credit... Kenny Holston/The New York Times An official from Ms. Gabbard's office said her position was not at odds with Mr. Trump's. In her testimony, Ms. Gabbard reported the consensus opinion of the intelligence community: that Iran's supreme leader had not authorized the country to build a nuclear weapon. But Ms. Gabbard had also noted Iran's large stocks of enriched uranium and a shift in tone that was 'likely emboldening nuclear weapons advocates within Iran's decision-making apparatus.' But Mr. Trump's Air Force One remark came off as a rebuke. To a certain extent, some officials said, courting Mr. Trump's displeasure is a hazard of any intelligence job in his administration. Mr. Trump believes the intelligence community undermined him in his first term, and his long-held skepticism that it is part of a disloyal deep state continues. Ms. Gabbard, when briefing Mr. Trump, presents a range of options and assessments. But it is difficult to talk about the findings of spy agencies and not raise Mr. Trump's ire, the official said. Ms. Gabbard's most important job as director of national intelligence is overseeing, and delivering, the president's daily intelligence brief. But the brief is actually produced a few miles from her office at the C.I.A., and many of those working on the document are detailed from the agency. Ms. Gabbard announced internally last month that she would physically move the production of the brief to her headquarters, known as Liberty Crossing. Within the administration, several senior officials saw it as a way to try to enhance her own relevance at a time when Mr. Trump was questioning the relevance of the office. Others said it was an expensive decision that would be logistically difficult to carry out. Ultimately, the White House put the move on pause, according to multiple people briefed on the matter. Ms. Gabbard has influential defenders inside and outside the government. Mr. Vance, seen as the most senior voice for a less hawkish, more restrained foreign policy, issued a long social media post defending the administration's support of Israel's attack on Iran. He added to that a message supporting Ms. Gabbard. He also released a statement calling her a 'patriot.' Her supporters insist that she remains relevant and that, over time, her skepticism of American intervention in Ukraine and caution on military action against Iran will once more prevail. The possible delay of any decision by Mr. Trump to strike Iran represents an opportunity for diplomacy and critics of American military intervention to make the case for restraint, some of Ms. Gabbard's supporters said. Olivia C. Coleman, a spokeswoman for Ms. Gabbard's office, dismissed the reports of dissatisfaction or tensions with the White House as 'lies made up by bored, irrelevant anonymous sources with nothing better to do than sow fake division.' 'The director,' Ms. Coleman said, 'remains focused on her mission: providing accurate and actionable intelligence to the president, cleaning up the deep state and keeping the American people safe, secure and free.'

New York Times

40 minutes ago

• New York Times

Israel-Iran ConflictLive Updates: Israel and Iran Trade New Strikes on 9th Day of War

President Trump was angry. Earlier this month, Tulsi Gabbard, his director of national intelligence, had posted a three-and-half-minute video to social media describing her visit to Hiroshima, Japan, and outlining the horrors caused by the detonation of a nuclear weapon there 80 years ago. Speaking directly to the camera, Ms. Gabbard warned that the threat of nuclear war remained. 'As we stand here today, closer to the brink of nuclear annihilation than ever before,' she said, 'political elites and warmongers are carelessly fomenting fear and tension between nuclear powers.' Mr. Trump berated Ms. Gabbard for the video, according to two people briefed on the conversation. He said that her discussion of nuclear annihilation would scare people and that officials should not talk about it. Mr. Trump's displeasure with the video laid bare months of his skepticism of Ms. Gabbard and frustrations with her. The president and some administration officials viewed her overseas travel, as the video exemplified, as being as much about self-promotion of her political career as it was about the business of government, multiple officials said, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal dynamics of the administration. But the tensions surrounding Ms. Gabbard are now in the open, as Mr. Trump considers mounting a military strike on Iran. Ms. Gabbard, a critic of overseas entanglements, has privately raised concerns of a wider war. And on Friday Mr. Trump said 'she's wrong' when he was asked about her testimony in March that Iran had not decided to build a nuclear weapon. After the video was posted, the president also told Ms. Gabbard that he was disappointed in her, and wished she had used better judgment, according to one of the two people briefed on the conversation. He told Ms. Gabbard that he believed she was using her time working for him to set herself up for higher office. Mr. Trump told Ms. Gabbard that if she wanted to run for president, she should not be in the administration, one of the people briefed on the meeting said. Image Ms. Gabbard and her husband, Abraham Williams, at her swearing-in at the White House in February. Credit... Eric Lee/The New York Times While Ms. Gabbard is a former Democrat, her credentials as a critic of America's long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and as a skeptic of foreign military interventions appeal to Mr. Trump's base, and her views dovetail with those of some of his other advisers. Her supporters are openly advocating that the president keep her. 'The president needs someone who will give him the right intelligence information, whether he likes it or not,' said Daniel L. Davis, an analyst at the think tank Defense Priorities, which advocates a restrained foreign policy. 'If you put someone else in there, they might only tell him what he wants to hear.' Mr. Davis, a retired Army lieutenant colonel, was Ms. Gabbard's choice for a top intelligence role before criticism from Republicans over his skepticism of Israel's war in Gaza forced her to rescind the appointment. There is no question, officials said, that Ms. Gabbard's standing has been weakened and that she is embattled. But few in the administration want to see her depart. Some say she has people who like her, while others worry about who might replace her. Two officials said that Mr. Trump's anger over the video had faded and that they were back on better terms. Ms. Gabbard continues to brief the president regularly and speaks often to John Ratcliffe, the C.I.A. director, who held Ms. Gabbard's job in the first Trump administration, according to multiple officials. In a statement, the White House press office dismissed any notion she has been sidelined. Steven Cheung, a White House spokesman, said Mr. Trump had 'full confidence' in his national security team. 'D.N.I. Gabbard is an important member of the president's team and her work continues to serve him and this country well,' Mr. Cheung said. Ms. Gabbard was an aggressive supporter of Mr. Trump on the 2024 campaign trail. He and his top advisers valued her input, especially when Mr. Trump was preparing to debate Vice President Kamala Harris — whom Ms. Gabbard had memorably attacked in a Democratic primary debate in 2019. After the election, Mr. Trump quickly decided to nominate her for director of national intelligence. But from the beginning he made clear to associates that he harbored some doubts. Mr. Trump, according to associates, saw her as overly interested in her own success. Mr. Trump drew a contrast between Ms. Gabbard and the other former Democrat he named to his cabinet, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. 'Bobby's a star,' Mr. Trump told one associate. 'Tulsi? Tulsi wants to be a star.' Mr. Trump's implication was that unlike Mr. Kennedy, Ms. Gabbard did not have what it took to succeed in politics. Image Ms. Gabbard with Mr. Trump, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Tucker Carlson during a campaign event in Georgia in October. Credit... Kenny Holston/The New York Times And soon after her swearing-in, he began to complain about her effectiveness. At the same time, Mr. Trump — long mistrustful of the intelligence community — questioned whether there needed to be an Office of the Director of National Intelligence at all. A senior intelligence official said Ms. Gabbard had overseen a 25 percent cut in the size of her office. And Ms. Gabbard has repeatedly told people in the White House that she is willing to be the last director of national intelligence, according to an official. The office, Ms. Gabbard said, could be reabsorbed into the C.I.A., or become something akin to the National Security Council, a bare-bones oversight group. At least for a time, the kind of foreign policy restraint Ms. Gabbard favors appeared to gain traction this spring. In White House discussions about Israel and Iran, Ms. Gabbard raised the range of possible consequences of an Israeli strike against Iran, saying it could trigger a wider conflict that brought in the United States. Vice President JD Vance, at times also a skeptic of military intervention, made similar arguments and was among those who supported Mr. Trump's impulse to initially try to negotiate a deal with Iran. As the C.I.A. delivered intelligence reports that Israel intended to strike Iran regardless, Mr. Trump and senior aides became more publicly supportive of the Israeli campaign. Ms. Gabbard did not attend a key meeting at Camp David, where Mr. Ratcliffe presented assessments about Iran's nuclear program. Ms. Gabbard, according to officials, was on Army Reserve duty. Other people with knowledge of the matter have said she was not invited. (Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said Ms. Gabbard had met daily with Mr. Trump and his team.) Then on Tuesday, Mr. Trump contradicted Ms. Gabbard in public. After the Israeli strikes began, a journalist on Air Force One asked Mr. Trump about Ms. Gabbard's testimony in March that Iran had not decided to make a nuclear bomb. 'I don't care what she said,' Mr. Trump said. 'I think they were very close to having it.' He made similar comments on Friday. Image Mr. Trump, aboard Air Force One this week, contradicted Ms. Gabbard's assessment of Iran's nuclear program. Credit... Kenny Holston/The New York Times An official from Ms. Gabbard's office said her position was not at odds with Mr. Trump's. In her testimony, Ms. Gabbard reported the consensus opinion of the intelligence community: that Iran's supreme leader had not authorized the country to build a nuclear weapon. But Ms. Gabbard had also noted Iran's large stocks of enriched uranium and a shift in tone that was 'likely emboldening nuclear weapons advocates within Iran's decision-making apparatus.' But Mr. Trump's Air Force One remark came off as a rebuke. To a certain extent, some officials said, courting Mr. Trump's displeasure is a hazard of any intelligence job in his administration. Mr. Trump believes the intelligence community undermined him in his first term, and his long-held skepticism that it is part of a disloyal deep state continues. Ms. Gabbard, when briefing Mr. Trump, presents a range of options and assessments. But it is difficult to talk about the findings of spy agencies and not raise Mr. Trump's ire, the official said. Ms. Gabbard's most important job as director of national intelligence is overseeing, and delivering, the president's daily intelligence brief. But the brief is actually produced a few miles from her office at the C.I.A., and many of those working on the document are detailed from the agency. Ms. Gabbard announced internally last month that she would physically move the production of the brief to her headquarters, known as Liberty Crossing. Within the administration, several senior officials saw it as a way to try to enhance her own relevance at a time when Mr. Trump was questioning the relevance of the office. Others said it was an expensive decision that would be logistically difficult to carry out. Ultimately, the White House put the move on pause, according to multiple people briefed on the matter. Ms. Gabbard has influential defenders inside and outside the government. Mr. Vance, seen as the most senior voice for a less hawkish, more restrained foreign policy, issued a long social media post defending the administration's support of Israel's attack on Iran. He added to that a message supporting Ms. Gabbard. He also released a statement calling her a 'patriot.' Her supporters insist that she remains relevant and that, over time, her skepticism of American intervention in Ukraine and caution on military action against Iran will once more prevail. The possible delay of any decision by Mr. Trump to strike Iran represents an opportunity for diplomacy and critics of American military intervention to make the case for restraint, some of Ms. Gabbard's supporters said. Olivia C. Coleman, a spokeswoman for Ms. Gabbard's office, dismissed the reports of dissatisfaction or tensions with the White House as 'lies made up by bored, irrelevant anonymous sources with nothing better to do than sow fake division.' 'The director,' Ms. Coleman said, 'remains focused on her mission: providing accurate and actionable intelligence to the president, cleaning up the deep state and keeping the American people safe, secure and free.'

Yahoo

an hour ago

• Yahoo

Israel-Iran war stretches into a second week without diplomatic breakthrough

Hours of talks aimed at de-escalating fighting between Israel and Iran failed to produce a diplomatic breakthrough as the war entered its second week with a fresh round of strikes between the two adversaries. European ministers and Iran's top diplomat met for four hours on Friday in Geneva, as President Donald Trump continued to weigh US military involvement and worries rose over potential strikes on nuclear reactors. European officials expressed hope for future negotiations, and Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi said he was open to further dialogue while emphasising that Tehran had no interest in negotiating with the US while Israel continued attacking. 'Iran is ready to consider diplomacy if aggression ceases and the aggressor is held accountable for its committed crimes,' he told reporters. No date was set for the next round of talks. Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Israel's military operation in Iran would continue 'for as long as it takes' to eliminate what he called the existential threat of Iran's nuclear programme and arsenal of ballistic missiles. Israel's top general echoed the warning, saying the Israeli military was ready 'for a prolonged campaign'. But Mr Netanyahu's goal could be out of reach without US help. Iran's underground Fordo uranium enrichment facility is considered to be out of reach to all but America's 'bunker-buster' bombs. Mr Trump said he would put off deciding whether to join Israel's air campaign against Iran for up to two weeks. The war between Israel and Iran erupted on June 13, with Israeli airstrikes targeting nuclear and military sites, top generals and nuclear scientists. At least 657 people, including 263 civilians, have been killed in Iran and more than 2,000 wounded, according to a Washington-based Iranian human rights group. Iran has retaliated by firing 450 missiles and 1,000 drones at Israel, according to Israeli army estimates. Most have been shot down by Israel's multi-tiered air defences, but at least 24 people in Israel have been killed and hundreds wounded. Israel's defence minister said on Saturday it killed a commander in Iran's paramilitary Revolutionary Guard who financed and armed Hamas in preparation for the October 7 2023 attack on Israel that sparked the 20-month long war in Gaza. Israel said Saeed Izadi was commander of the Palestine Corps for the Iranian Quds Force, an elite arm of the Guard that conducts military and intelligence operations outside Iran, and that he was killed in an apartment in the city of Qom.