Israel-Iran War: Can Trump bomb Iran without asking? Capitol Hill says no, invokes War Powers Act
President Donald Trump is keeping his cards close. When asked whether the United States would join Israel's escalating military confrontation with Iran, he simply said, 'I may do it. I may not.' That was on June 18, just days after Israel launched strikes on Iranian territory.
Since then, speculation has grown over whether Trump might authorise a U.S. military operation—without getting the green light from
Congress
.
According to
Department of State
spokeswoman Tammy Bruce, 'He is the singular guiding hand about what will be occurring from this point forward.'
But many lawmakers disagree. And they're rushing to reassert control.
Congress says, "Not without us"
The U.S. Constitution is clear: only Congress has the power to declare war.
Live Events
'This is not our war,' said Republican Representative
Thomas Massie
of Kentucky. 'Even if it were, Congress must decide such matters according to our Constitution.'
Massie has introduced a resolution under the 1973 War Powers Act to stop any unauthorised U.S. strikes on Iran. He's joined by Democrat Ro Khanna of California, who posted on X, 'Are you with the neocons who led us into Iraq or do you stand with the American people?'
Over in the Senate, Democrat
Tim Kaine
has introduced a similar resolution. 'This resolution will ensure that if we decide to place our nation's men and women in uniform into harm's way, we will have a debate and vote on it in Congress,' he said.
The War Powers Act: What it actually does
Passed in 1973 after the Vietnam War and President Nixon's secret bombing of Cambodia, the War Powers Act was designed to limit the president's ability to launch military action unilaterally.
It says, The president must notify Congress within 48 hours of launching military action.
Military deployment without congressional approval is limited to 60–90 days.
Congress must be consulted 'in every possible instance' before troops are committed abroad.
The law was passed over Nixon's veto—but almost every president since has found ways to work around it.
Why it's back in the spotlight
As Israeli airstrikes continue and Trump hints at joining in, lawmakers worry that the U.S. could be dragged into another prolonged Middle East war. That's exactly what the War Powers Act was supposed to prevent.
Bernie Sanders, the independent senator from Vermont, has proposed the
No War Against Iran Act
, which would prohibit the use of federal funds for any attack on Iran without a formal declaration of war or congressional authorisation.
'The recent escalation of hostilities between Israel and Iran could quickly pull the United States into another endless conflict,' Senator Kaine warned.
Can the President Act without Congress?
Technically, the president is commander-in-chief of the military. Under Article II of the Constitution, Trump can respond to 'sudden attacks' or threats. But the power to start a war—that belongs to Congress.
Still, history tells a different story.
Since World War II, U.S. presidents have authorised military operations in Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf, Libya, Somalia, and more—without formal declarations of war. They've relied instead on broad laws like the 2001 and 2002 Authorisations for Use of Military Force (AUMFs), passed after the 9/11 attacks and before the 2003 Iraq invasion.
Trump used the 2002 AUMF to justify the assassination of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani in 2020.
So does the War Powers Act have any real power?
It's complicated.
Congress can vote to end military action, but the president can veto that decision. Overriding a veto requires a two-thirds majority in both the
House
and Senate—a rare feat in a divided Washington.
In 2019, Congress tried to end U.S. support for the Saudi-led war in Yemen. Trump vetoed it. Then again in 2020, after the Soleimani strike, Congress passed a bill to limit Trump's powers to launch war on Iran. Trump vetoed that too.
The War Powers Act has been criticised for being more symbolic than effective. Even President Joe Biden once led a Senate subcommittee that concluded the law was falling short of its original purpose.
Opinions split, even within parties
Not all Democrats back Kaine's resolution. Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania has said he would vote against it. He believes Trump should retain the option to preemptively strike Iran's nuclear infrastructure.
On the Republican side, some are more cautious. Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky said: 'No president can bomb another country without the permission of Congress.' He added, 'It's always been my belief that you don't go to war without the approval of Congress and bombing other countries is obviously war.'
But others support Trump's freedom to act. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas said, 'A single bombing run, historically, has not been understood to require congressional authorisation.' Sustained warfare, he agreed, would require Congress to act.
Senator Lindsey Graham took it a step further. 'If diplomacy is not successful,' he said, 'I would urge President Trump to go all in… If that means flying with Israel, fly with Israel.'
The House and Senate are currently on recess, but both will be forced to vote on the new resolutions once they return. The outcome will test the strength of Congress's war-making authority.
Meanwhile, Trump has made it clear he's watching the conflict closely. After cutting short a G7 trip in Canada, he returned to Washington and declared, 'We now have complete and total control of the skies over Iran.' He added, 'We know exactly where the so-called 'Supreme Leader' is hiding... We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now.'
At its heart, this isn't just a legal or political issue. It's about whether the people, through their elected representatives, get to decide when America goes to war.
For decades, war decisions have been drifting away from Congress and towards the
Oval Office
. This moment could shift that balance—or cement it.
With Iran's nuclear programme in the crosshairs, and Israel already striking, the next move could redraw the map of the Middle East—and reshape America's role in it.
And if history is any guide, the decision could be made by one man, not 535 lawmakers.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
28 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Donald Trump hints at Israel-Iran ceasefire, warns Iran has ‘maximum' two weeks
President Donald Trump on Friday indicated he may support a ceasefire in the ongoing aerial conflict between Israel and Iran, now in its second week, but said it would depend on how events unfold. US President Donald Trump expressed doubt over Europe's ability to mediate the ongoing Israel Iran conflict.(Bloomberg) Asked by reporters if he would back a truce while diplomatic talks continue, Trump replied, "I might, depending on the circumstances." He also warned that Iran has a limited timeframe to avoid possible U.S. military action. "I'm giving them a period of time, and I would say two weeks would be the maximum," Trump said, hinting that a decision could come sooner. Trump expressed doubt over Europe's ability to mediate the conflict. "Iran doesn't want to speak to Europe. They want to speak to us. Europe is not going to be able to help in this one," he said. On the same day, Iran's foreign minister held talks with British, French, German, and EU counterparts in Geneva to discuss restarting diplomatic efforts on its nuclear program. European leaders urged Tehran to engage directly with Washington, but the discussions ended without a breakthrough. When asked whether U.S. ground troops would be required if conflict escalates, Trump said, "Well, I'm not going to talk about ground forces, because the last thing you want to do is ground forces." The Israel-Iran air war began on June 13, when Israel launched strikes on Iranian territory, claiming the goal was to stop Iran from advancing its nuclear weapons capability. Israel, which is widely believed to possess nuclear weapons, is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Iran, which insists its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, is a member of the NPT and responded with retaliatory strikes. According to the Human Rights Activists News Agency, Israel's attacks have killed 639 people in Iran. Meanwhile, Israel has reported 24 civilian deaths from Iranian strikes. Trump and the White House have said a decision on US involvement in the conflict will be made within two weeks. So far, Trump's stance has ranged from promoting a diplomatic resolution to signalling potential military support for Israel, leaving global observers uncertain about the US course of action. Europe joins Tehran talks as two-week clock ticks President Donald Trump on Friday dismissed the prospects of European diplomacy resolving the Israel-Iran conflict, reiterating that Iran is uninterested in engaging with European leaders. "Iran doesn't want to speak to Europe. They want to speak to us. Europe is not going to be able to help in this," Trump said upon arriving in Morristown, New Jersey. He also played down the possibility of urging Israel to pause its military actions, responding to Iran's demand that Israel cease its strikes before Tehran resumes dialogue with Washington. When asked if he would press Israel to halt attacks, Trump said it was "very hard to make that request right now," adding, "If somebody's winning, it's a little bit harder to do than if somebody's losing, but we're ready, willing and able, and we've been speaking to Iran, and we'll see what happens." Addressing the timeline for a potential US military response, Trump said, "I'm giving them a period of time, and I would say two weeks would be the maximum," explaining that the goal was to "see whether or not people come to their senses." A day earlier, Trump had said he would "make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks" because of a "substantial chance of negotiations" with Iran. That statement was interpreted as opening a short diplomatic window, prompting European leaders to meet with Iran's foreign minister in Geneva. However, Trump said the discussions "didn't help," and his latest remarks suggest he may act sooner if there's no progress on Iran's nuclear programme. (With inputs from agencies)
Time of India
29 minutes ago
- Time of India
Amid Bharat Mata row, state to include school lesson on guv's ‘real role'
Thiruvananthapuram: The controversy over the display of a Bharat Mata portrait allegedly used in RSS shakhas at functions in Raj Bhavan has all the signs of snowballing into a protracted showdown between the state govt and governor Rajendra V Arlekar. A day after walking out of an event at Raj Bhavan for the same, general education minister V Sivankutty on Friday said the real role and responsibilities of governors, as defined in the Constitution, would be included in the Class X social science textbook in this academic year. The decision, he said, was taken in view of the increasing attempts to weaken elected state govts using governors. "Since schools are the best places to instil democratic values, the constitutional powers of the governor will be included as a prominent section in the SSLC textbook," he said. Raj Bhavan sources, meanwhile, said the governor continued to stick to his stance that Sivankutty violated protocol by walking out of the event, which, according to Arlekar, was not strictly a state govt function. According to the governor, the distribution of Rajya Puraskar awards to Bharat Scouts and Guides was not a state govt event and the minister had no reason to object to the display of the Bharat Mata portrait. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Top Doctor: If You Eat Eggs Every Day, This Is What Happens WellnessGuide Learn more Undo Arlekar had on Thursday stated that there was no question of doing away with Bharat Mata "as we draw our idea of patriotism and nationhood from her." Some Raj Bhavan officials had earlier indicated that the governor had agreed to avoid such portraits at govt functions held at Raj Bhavan. Backing Sivankutty, CPM state secretary M V Govindan said only those who had studied the Constitution could identify violation of constitutional values. He accused Arlekar of trying to convert Raj Bhavan into RSS headquarters. "All those who believe in democracy should oppose this approach by the governor. This is not something CPM alone should protest against," he said after the party's state secretariat meeting on Friday. Hinting at CPM's intent to escalate the controversy, SFI workers took out a march to Raj Bhavan on Friday, carrying banners against the governor. SFI state secretary P S Sanjeev said the governor had no right to use Raj Bhavan to advance his RSS ideology. DYFI also staged a similar protest march to Raj Bhavan on Thursday. Meanwhile, ABVP activists came out in support of the governor, waving black flags at Sivankutty. Agriculture minister P Prasad had earlier refused to attend a function at Raj Bhavan when he was told that he should pay tributes in front of the Bharat Mata portrait before the ceremony.
Time of India
29 minutes ago
- Time of India
Said no to Trump invite as I had to visit land of Lord Jagannath: Modi
1 2 Bhubaneswar: Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Friday finally explained the reason for declining US President Donald Trump 's recent invite for a stopover in Washington on his way back from Canada. Addressing a gathering in Bhubaneswar on Friday, PM Modi said he had to say no to Trump's invite as he did not want to miss his scheduled visit to the "land of Lord Jagannath". Speaking at an event to mark one year of Mohan Charan Majhi-led BJP govt in Odisha, Modi said, "The President of the United States called me, saying, 'Since you are in Canada, please come over. We will have a meal together and talk.' He extended a warm invitation. I thanked him for the invitation and politely declined, expressing that visiting the land of Mahaprabhu was essential for me. The devotion for Mahaprabhu and your love drew me here. " The explanation puts to rest speculations that had built up ever since foreign secretary Vikram Misri put on record that PM Modi had to skip the Trump meeting due to "prior commitments". While Majhi's first anniversary as CM was on June 12, the Odisha govt timed the main celebration on Friday to accommodate the PM's schedule. Any change in plan could have put the govt in an awkward position in a state where the BJP swept the Lok Sabha polls, winning 20 of the 21 seats, and stormed to power by winning 78 of the 147 assembly seats. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Stunning 2-Bed Senior Houses: Take A Peek Inside! GoSearches | Search Ads Undo In what was Modi's sixth visit to the state in the past one year, the PM praised Odisha's progress under the BJP govt, emphasizing the state's role in India's cultural and economic development. He highlighted various initiatives aimed at improving infrastructure, healthcare, and economic opportunities for the people of Odisha, particularly tribal communities. The PM also highlighted the significant role of eastern India in the country's growth trajectory and underscored the region's potential as a catalyst for India's progress in the 21st century. "The development of 21st century India will gain momentum from eastern India. This is the era of Purvodaya," the PM said.
