Live Updates: Fears Run High as Iran Weighs Response to U.S. Strikes
Demonstrators hold signs against the U.S. strikes against Iran in Washington outside the White House on Sunday.
Before he ordered strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities, President Trump did not seek permission from Congress, to which the U.S. Constitution grants the sole power to declare war. Many Democrats and even some Republicans say that the attack was tantamount to a declaration of war and that Mr. Trump acted illegally.
Several Trump aides say they disagree, calling the strike a limited action aimed solely at Iran's nuclear capabilities that does not meet the definition of war. 'This is not a war against Iran,' Secretary of State Marco Rubio told Fox News on Sunday.
Vice President JD Vance argued that Mr. Trump had 'clear authority to act to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.'
However, later on Sunday, Mr. Trump wrote online that his military aims could be much more expansive: 'If the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!'
Criticisms of the attack, which came less than two weeks after Israel began its bombing campaign against Iran, include Mr. Trump not giving American policymakers, lawmakers and the public enough time to debate a role in a conflict that experts warn could grow quickly if Iran retaliates.
The furor over the sudden strikes follows years of bipartisan efforts in Congress to try to place greater limits on a president's ability to order military action, efforts that arose because of disastrous American wars in the Middle East and Central Asia.
So is the United States at war with Iran? And did Mr. Trump have the authority to order his attack without consulting Congress?
What does the U.S. Constitution say about war?
Image
A demonstrator holds a shredded copy of the Constitution of the United States on Sunday.
Credit...
Eric Lee for The New York Times
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution assigns Congress dozens of powers like collecting taxes and creating post offices, as well as the power to 'declare war' and to 'raise and support armies.'
The Constitution's framers considered that clause a crucial check on presidential power, according to an essay by the law professors Michael D. Ramsey and Stephen I. Vladeck for the National Constitution Center. Early in American history, Congress approved even limited conflicts, including frontier clashes with Native American tribes.
But the question is complicated by Article II of the Constitution, which delineates the powers of the president, and which designates the U.S. leader as the 'commander in chief' of the U.S. military.
Presidents of both parties, relying heavily on legal opinions written by executive-branch lawyers, have cited that language to justify military action without congressional involvement.
Congress tried asserting itself with the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which says the American president must 'consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances.'
But presidents have repeatedly disregarded that language or argued for a narrow definition of the 'introduction' of forces. Congress has done little to enforce the resolution.
What are members of Congress saying about the U.S. strikes?
Image
President Trump walking across the South Lawn as he returned to the White House on Sunday.
Credit...
Anna Rose Layden for The New York Times
Democrats have almost uniformly criticized Mr. Trump for acting without legislative consent, and a few Republicans have as well.
'His actions are a clear violation of our Constitution — ignoring the requirement that only the Congress has the authority to declare war,' Senator Chris Van Hollen, Democrat of Maryland, said in a statement echoed by many of his colleagues.
Representative Thomas Massie, Republican of Kentucky, told CBS News that there was no 'imminent threat to the United States' from Iran.
Senator Tim Kaine, Democrat of Virginia, said on the same CBS program that Congress must act this week to assert a role in any further U.S. military action.
'Would we think it was war if Iran bombed a U.S. nuclear facility? Of course we would,' Mr. Kaine said. 'This is the U.S. jumping into a war of choice at Donald Trump's urging, without any compelling national security interests for the United States to act in this way, particularly without a debate and vote in Congress.'
Some Democrats say Mr. Trump has already gone unforgivably far. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York called on Saturday night for Mr. Trump's impeachment.
Hawkish Republicans rejected such talk. 'He had all the authority he needs under the Constitution,' Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina told NBC News on Sunday. Mr. Graham cited Mr. Trump's power as commander in chief under Article II of the Constitution.
'Congress can declare war, or cut off funding. We can't be the commander in chief. You can't have 535 commander-in-chiefs,' Mr. Graham said, referring to the combined number of U.S. representatives and senators. 'If you don't like what the president does in terms of war, you can cut off the funding.'
Mr. Graham noted that Congress has made formal war declarations in only five conflicts, and none since World War II. However, there has been a legal equivalent from Congress that President George W. Bush was the last American leader to successfully seek: an authorization for the use of military force, often called an A.U.M.F.
What are legal scholars saying?
Image
Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi of Iran called the U.S. attack an 'outrageous, grave and unprecedented violation' of international law and of the United Nations charter.
Credit...
Khalil Hamra/Associated Press
Several lawyers and scholars who have studied the international law of armed conflict say the United States is without a doubt at war with Iran for purposes of application of that law, and that Mr. Trump acted in violation of international conventions.
'The short answer is that this is, in my view, illegal under both international law and U.S. domestic law,' said Oona Hathaway, a professor of international law at Yale Law School who has worked at the Defense Department.
Brian Finucane, a former lawyer at the State Department, agreed that Mr. Trump needed to ask Congress for authorization beforehand. He also said 'there is certainly a U.S. armed conflict with Iran, so the law of war applies.'
On Sunday, Iran's foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, called the U.S. attack an 'outrageous, grave and unprecedented violation' of international law and of the United Nations charter, which forbids U.N. members from violating the sovereignty of other members.
Mr. Araghchi did not specifically say that his country is now at war with America. Mr. Finucane also said the United States had violated the U.N. charter.
Ryan Goodman, a law professor at New York University who has also worked at the Defense Department, said 'one important matter for both domestic law and especially international law is the issue of 'imminence.''
The Trump administration is justifying the U.S. attack by saying Iran's development of a nuclear weapon was imminent, Mr. Goodman noted.
But 'the law would require that the attack would be imminent,' he said, and 'it is very hard to see how the administration can meet that test under even the most charitable legal assessment.'
Even if one were to focus on the question of a nuclear bomb, U.S. intelligence agencies have assessed that Iran had not yet decided to make such a weapon, even though it had developed a large stockpile of the enriched uranium necessary for doing so.
How often have presidents sought congressional approval for war?
Image
The furor over the sudden strikes also follows years of bipartisan efforts in Congress to try to place greater limits on a president's ability to order military action, efforts that arose because of disastrous American wars in the Middle East and Central Asia.
Credit...
Eric Lee/The New York Times
In the decades since Congress declared war on Japan and Germany in 1941, U.S. presidents have repeatedly joined or started major conflicts without congressional consent.
President Harry S. Truman sent U.S. forces into Korea. President Ronald Reagan ordered military action in Libya, Grenada and Lebanon; President George H.W. Bush invaded Panama; President Bill Clinton ordered the bombing of mostly Serbian targets in Yugoslavia during the Kosovo War; President Barack Obama joined a 2011 NATO bombing campaign against the government of Muammar Qaddafi in Libya and led a military campaign against the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq.
Mr. Obama broke with this trend in September 2013 when he decided against launching a planned strike against Syria without first seeking congressional authorization. The strike was unpopular in Congress, which never held a vote, and Mr. Obama did not act.
President George W. Bush won separate congressional authorizations for the use of military force against Afghanistan and Iraq before ordering invasions of those countries in 2001 and 2003.
In the years since the Al Qaeda attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, several presidents have also ordered countless airstrikes and special operations raids on foreign soil to kill accused terrorists. Those have largely relied on broad interpretations of the two authorizations for the use of military force that Congress granted the executive branch for the so-called war on terror.
Emma Ashford, a scholar of U.S. foreign policy at the Stimson Center, said that in the post-9/11 wars, 'some presidents have largely stopped asking permission at all.'
In January 2020, Mr. Trump chose not to consult Congress before ordering an airstrike that killed a senior Iranian military commander, Qassim Suleimani, while he was visiting Iraq. Many members of Congress called that a clear act of war that was likely to begin wider hostilities. Iran responded by firing 27 missiles at U.S. forces in Iraq, inflicting traumatic brain injuries on about 100 U.S. troops. But the conflict did not expand further.
Last year, President Joseph R. Biden Jr. ordered U.S. airstrikes against the Houthi militia in Yemen without getting congressional permission, and Mr. Trump did the same this year.
Advances in military technology, including drones and precision-guided munitions, have allowed presidents to take action with minimal initial risk to U.S. forces. Military officials say that Saturday's strike in Iran, carried out by B-2 stealth bombers, encountered no resistance.
But critics say the action invites Iranian retaliation that could escalate into full-scale war.
What happens next
Image
Advances in military technology, including drones and precision-guided munitions, have allowed presidents to take action with minimal initial risk to U.S. forces.
Credit...
Eric Lee for The New York Times
G.O.P. leaders in the House and Senate have signaled support for the strike, but Democrats and a few Republicans are demanding that Congress approve any further military action.
Mr. Kaine, who serves on the committees on armed services and foreign relations, introduced a Senate resolution last week requiring that Mr. Trump get explicit congressional approval before taking military action against Iran. Mr. Kaine on Sunday said the measure was still relevant and that he hoped it would come to a vote this week.
Mr. Massie, the Kentucky Republican, introduced a similar war powers resolution last week in the House with Ro Khanna, Democrat of California.
'When two countries are bombing each other daily in a hot war, and a third country joins the bombing, that's an act of war,' Mr. Massie wrote on social media on Sunday.
Mr. Massie said he was 'amazed at the mental gymnastics' Mr. Trump's defenders have employed to argue the United States was not entering a war by attacking Iranian nuclear facilities.
Megan Mineiro contributed reporting.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Mideast governments condemn Syria church bombing as death toll jumps to 25
DAMASCUS, Syria (AP) — The death toll from an attack on a church in Syria has gone up to 25, state media said Monday. The attack Sunday on the Mar Elias Greek Orthodox church during a Divine Liturgy in Dweil'a near Damascus was the first of its kind in Syria in years, and comes as Damascus under its de facto Islamist rule is trying to win the support of minorities. As President Ahmad al-Sharaa struggles to exert authority across the country, there have been concerns about the presence of sleeper cells of extremist groups in the war-torn country. The ministry and most witnesses said a gunman entered the church, and started firing at the people there before detonating his explosive vest. SANA, citing the Health Ministry, said 63 other people were wounded in the attack. Father Fadi Ghattas told The Associated Press after the attack that some 350 people were praying at the church. The United States, the European Union and governments across the Middle East condemned the attack, decrying it as a terrorist attack. No group immediately claimed responsibility, but the Syrian Interior Minister has blamed the extremist Islamic State group. Since the toppling of Bashar Assad and his family's decades-long dictatorial rule of Syria last December in a lightning insurgency, al-Sharaa has been pushing to win the support of Syria's non-Sunni-Muslim minority groups who are concerned about life under Islamist rule.
Time Magazine
25 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
Why Trump Has Had Enough of This Republican Congressman
'MAGA doesn't want him, doesn't know him, and doesn't respect him,' President Donald Trump wrote in a lengthy tirade against Thomas Massie, a Republican congressman from Kentucky who has criticized the President over a number of issues from war with Iran to the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill. 'He is a negative force who almost always Votes 'NO,' no matter how good something may be. He's a simple minded 'grandstander' who thinks it's good politics for Iran to have the highest level Nuclear weapon, while at the same time yelling 'DEATH TO AMERICA' at every chance they get,' Trump posted on Sunday. He added: 'MAGA should drop this pathetic LOSER, Tom Massie, like the plague!' Massie responded with a tongue-in-cheek post on X that the President 'declared so much War on me today it should require an Act of Congress.' Massie joined last week with a number of Democratic lawmakers to raise the alarm over potential U.S. military intervention in the Middle East without constitutionally-mandated congressional authorization. While Massie won't face a reelection contest until 2026, Trump has already unveiled a plan to challenge him and further enforce loyalty within the GOP ranks. 'The good news is that we will have a wonderful American Patriot running against him in the Republican Primary, and I'll be out in Kentucky campaigning really hard,' Trump added, without naming a prospective primary opponent. 'MAGA is not about lazy, grandstanding, nonproductive politicians, of which Thomas Massie is definitely one.' Massie, who is known for his outspoken libertarian views, has survived primary challenges before and told Axios, which reported on the effort to oust him, that 'any serious person considering running should spend money on an independent poll before letting swampy consultants take them for an embarrassing ride.' Who is Thomas Massie? Massie, 54, was born in West Virginia and earned bachelor's and master's degrees in engineering from MIT in the 1990s before turning to local politics in 2010, when he ran and won the race for Judge Executive of Lewis County, Ky., amid the Tea Party wave. In 2012, after then-Rep. Geoff Davis announced his retirement in Kentucky's deep-red 4th congressional district, Massie, who described himself as a 'constitutional conservative,' won the Republican primary in a landslide. When Davis resigned early, Massie won the same-day special election and general election to succeed him, taking office two months earlier than his fellow freshmen representatives elected in 2012. One of Massie's first moves was to vote in January 2013 against party leader John Boehner for Speaker, opting instead to vote for fellow libertarian Justin Amash. (Boehner narrowly won the speakership but would go on to resign in 2015. Amash would go on to not run for reelection in 2020 and temporarily leave the Republican Party after earning Trump's wrath for consistent criticism of the President and supporting his impeachment.) Since then, Massie has made a name for himself by regularly voting against bills, often breaking with his caucus and sometimes siding with Democrats. In 2013, Politico dubbed him 'Mr. No.' In 2016, Massie said he would vote for Trump but do everything he could to 'rein him in' if he acts unconstitutionally. In 2017, Massie tried to explain how the same movement that propelled him into office could also propel someone like Trump, telling the Washington Examiner: 'All this time, I thought they were voting for libertarian Republicans. But after some soul searching I realized when they voted for Rand and Ron [Paul] and me in these primaries, they weren't voting for libertarian ideas—they were voting for the craziest son of a b----- in the race. And Donald Trump won best in class.' During Trump's first term, Massie was among a small group of Republicans who joined Democrats in trying to override Trump's veto of legislation that would block his national emergency declaration at the border in 2019. That same year, he was the sole Republican to vote against a resolution opposing the boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement targeting Israel, and he was the sole no-vote across both parties on the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act. In March 2020, Trump called Massie a 'third rate Grandstander' and urged Republicans to throw him out of the party after the congressman tried to force a roll-call vote on a $2 trillion pandemic relief package. The stunt earned rebuke from both sides of the aisle, with former Democratic presidential nominee and former Secretary of State John Kerry posting on social media: 'Breaking news: Congressman Massie has tested positive for being an a--hole. He must be quarantined to prevent the spread of his massive stupidity.' But in a U-turn, Trump endorsed Massie in 2022, calling him 'a first-rate Defender of the Constitution.' In 2022, Massie was the lone 'No' vote on a symbolic measure condemning antisemitism, a move he defended as a stance against 'censorship' but critics described as 'performative contrarianism.' Why Trump wants Massie out Massie was once again on Trump's bad side in 2023 when Trump shared posts on his Truth Social platform that called the congressman a 'wolf in sheep's clothing' and said he 'helped destroy the Tea Party and now he's trying to destroy MAGA.' That didn't stop Massie from endorsing Trump in the 2024 general election after previously backing Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis in the Republican primary. But Trump finally had enough of Massie in March, when Massie voted against a continuing resolution to fund the federal government until September as Republicans worked to pass Trump's massive tax-and-spending legislative package, the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' (OBBB). The President took to Truth Social to appeal for a primary candidate to challenge Massie in 2026: 'HE SHOULD BE PRIMARIED, and I will lead the charge against him. He's just another GRANDSTANDER, who's too much trouble, and not worth the fight. He reminds me of Liz Chaney [sic] before her historic, record breaking fall (loss!). The people of Kentucky won't stand for it, just watch. DO I HAVE ANY TAKERS???' Massie brushed off the criticism, telling Politico: 'I had the Trump antibodies for a while — I needed a booster.' He said at the time that he had no intention to cave to Trump's pressure and believed the President's grudge would 'blow over.' When Massie continued to voice loud opposition to the OBBB, which is estimated to add trillions to the national debt, Trump said of Massie in May: 'He doesn't understand government' and 'should be voted out of office.' The OBBB ultimately passed in the House in May, when Massie was one of two Republicans in the lower chamber to vote against it. It has yet to pass in the Senate, especially after Massie found a sympathizer to his concerns about the bill's impact on the deficit in tech billionaire Elon Musk. Trump's latest missive against Massie came as Massie has become a leading voice against military intervention in Iran. Days after Israel launched an attack on Iran, Massie cosponsored a war powers resolution with Rep. Ro Khanna (D, Calif.) aimed at blocking the U.S. government from engaging in 'unauthorized hostilities.' After Trump revealed U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, Massie posted on X: 'This is not Constitutional.' While some have categorized Massie's wing of the MAGA base when it comes to the war as 'isolationists,' Massie told CBS on Sunday that he rejects the label, preferring 'non-interventionists.' 'We are exhausted,' he said. 'We are tired from all of these wars.' How is Trump planning to beat Massie? Trump is dedicating campaign firepower to oust Massie. Axios reported that Trump's senior political advisers, Tony Fabrizio and Chris LaCivita, will launch a political action committee devoted to defeating Massie in the May 2026 primary. LaCivita said the PAC will spend 'whatever it takes' to defeat Massie, who according to the team's internal polling was lagging behind the President in terms of support. As of now, only one candidate, Niki Lee Ethington, has announced that she will vie for Massie's congressional seat. Other names being floated, per Axios, are state senator Aaron Reed and state representative Kimberly Moser. 'Massie's long-time opposition to President Trump's working family tax cuts—and really anything to do with President Trump—is coming to an end,' LaCivita said in a statement. 'Thomas 'Little Boy' Massie will be fired.'
Bloomberg
25 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
World Braces for Iran's Response to US Attacks on Nuclear Sites
Good morning. The world braces for Iran's response after the US strikes. The State Department warns Americans to be cautious. And the Oklahoma City Thunder are NBA champions. Listen to the day's top stories. The US airstrikes on Iran set markets and governments worldwide on edge, as the Islamic Republic vowed to retaliate and Israel showed no sign of letting up. Donald Trump has threatened further military action if Tehran doesn't make peace with Israel. The fallout is just starting: the State Department issued a 'Worldwide Caution' alert for US citizens, while some airlines are canceling flights to the Persian Gulf and Japan's biggest banks are considering pulling their staff from the region. Keep up with the latest developments via our Live Blog.
