Analysis: Trump may authorize strikes against Iran. Can he just do that?

The question being projected by the White House as President Donald Trump mulls an offensive strike against Iran is: Will he or won't he?
It has blown right by something that should come earlier in the process, but hasn't gotten much attention: Can he?
Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle — but mostly Democrats at this point — have proposals to limit Trump's ability to simply launch strikes against Iran.
'We shouldn't go to war without a vote of Congress,' Sen. Tim Kaine, a Virginia Democrat, told CNN's Jake Tapper on 'The Lead' Wednesday.
Kaine has been trying for more than a decade to repeal the post-9/11 authorization for the use of military force that presidents from both parties have leaned on to launch military strikes.
The strictest reading of the Constitution suggests Trump, or any president, should go to Congress to declare war before attacking another country.
But Congress hasn't technically declared war since World War II and the US has been involved in a quite a few conflicts in the intervening generations.
Presidents from both parties have argued they don't need congressional approval to launch military strikes. But longer-scale wars have been authorized through a series of joint resolutions, including the 2001 authorization for the use of military force against any country, person or group associated with the 9/11 terror attacks or future attacks.
There's no indication Iran was involved with 9/11, so it would be a stretch to argue that vote, taken nearly a quarter of a century ago, would justify a strike against Iran today. But that vote has been used to justify scores of US military actions in at least 15 countries across the world.
The Trump administration has said recent assessments by US intelligence agencies from earlier this year that Iran is not close to a nuclear weapon are outdated and that Iran's close proximity to developing a nuclear weapon justifies a quicker effort to denude its capability, perhaps with US bunker-busting bombs. Israel apparently lacks the ability to penetrate Iran's Fordow nuclear site, which is buried in a mountain.
Prev
Next
Kaine, on the other hand, wants to hear more, and requiring a vote in Congress would force Trump to justify an attack.
'The last thing we need is to be buffaloed into a war in the Middle East based on facts that prove not to be true,' Kaine said. 'We've been down that path to great cost, and I deeply worry that it may happen again.'
In 1973, responding to the disastrous war in Vietnam, Congress overrode President Richard Nixon's veto to pass an important piece of legislation, the War Powers Resolution, that sought to rein in presidents regarding the use of military force.
The War Powers Resolution seeks to limit the president's ability to deploy the military to three types of situations:
a declaration of war,
specific statutory authorization, or
a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
An effort to end Iran's nuclear program would not seem to fall into any of those buckets, but Trump has plenty of lawyers at the Department of Justice and the Pentagon who will find a way to justify his actions. The law also requires Trump to 'consult' with Congress, but that could be interpreted in multiple ways.
The law does clearly require the president to issue a report to Congress within 48 hours of using military force. It also seeks to limit the time he has to use force before asking Congress for permission.
The Reiss Center at New York University has a database of more than 100 such reports presidents from both parties have sent to Congress over the past half-century after calling up the US military.
Rep. Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican, and Rep. Ro Khanna, a California Democrat, cite the War Powers Resolution in their proposal to bar Trump from using the US military against Iran without congressional approval or to respond to an attack.
'This is not our war,' Massie said in a post on X. 'Even if it were, Congress must decide such matters according to our Constitution.'
Nixon clearly disagreed with the War Powers Resolution, and subsequent presidents from both parties have also questioned it.
For instance, when Trump ordered the killing of a top Iranian general who was visiting Iraq in 2020, lawyers for the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice, in what we know from a heavily redacted legal opinion, argued the president inherently had authority to order the strike under the Constitution if he determined that doing so was in the national interest.
A similar memo sought to justifying US airstrikes in Syria during Trump's first term.
That 'national interest' test is all but a blank check, which seems on its face to be inconsistent with the idea in the Constitution that Congress is supposed to declare war, as the former government lawyers and law professors Jack Goldsmith and Curtis Bradley argue at Lawfare.
The OLC memo that justified the killing of the Iranian general suggests Congress can control the president by cutting off funding for operations and also that the president must seek congressional approval before 'the kind of protracted conflict that would rise to the level of war.'
Presidents have frequently carried out air strikes, rather than the commitment of ground forces, without congressional approval.
The OLC memo that justified the strike against the Iranian general in Iraq also argued Trump could rely on a 2002 vote by which Congress authorized the use of military force in Iraq. That 2002 authorization for use of military force (AUMF) was actually repealed in 2023, with help from then-Sen. JD Vance.
OLC memos have tried to define war as 'prolonged and substantial military engagements, typically involving exposure of U.S. military personnel to significant risk over a substantial period.' Air strikes, one could imagine OLC lawyers arguing, would not rise to that level.
What is a war? What are hostilities? These seem like semantic debates, but they complicate any effort to curtail presidential authority, as Brian Egan and Tess Bridgeman, both former national security lawyers for the government, argued in trying to explain the law at Just Security.
The most effective way to stop a president would be for Congress to cut off funds, something it clearly can do. But that is very unlikely in the current climate, when Republicans control both the House and the Senate.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

CBS News

17 minutes ago

• CBS News

Former Detroit home of Rosa Parks in line for historic district designation

A proposal is pending for the former Detroit home of Civil Rights Movement activists Rosa and Raymond Parks to be named a local historic district. The Detroit City Council Planning and Economic Development Standing Committee will hold a public hearing to consider the proposal. The designation is intended to honor the flat in the 3200 block of Virginia Park Street where Civil Rights activists Rosa and Raymond Parks lived for 27 years. "Their activism in Detroit helped shape the Civil Rights Movement," the Detroit Historic Designation Advisory Board said on its social media post. A public hearing, which is part of the designation process, will begin at 10:35 a.m. June 26 at the Coleman A. Young Municipal Center on Woodward Avenue. Detroit's local historic districts are meant to be associated with people or events that are a significant part of Detroit's history, or have artistic or historical significance. Once a local historic district is established for a site, any exterior alterations to the building must go through the Historic District Commission. Rosa Parks, who was already active in the Civil Rights Movement, became known for her refusal to follow the Jim Crow-era laws in Montgomery, Alabama. Specifically, she refused to give up her seat on a bus and move to the back of the vehicle on Dec. 1, 1955. Her arrest in that incident helped spark the Montgomery bus boycott. After the boycott, Rosa and Raymond Parks moved to Hampton, Virginia, and then settled in Detroit. He died in 1977. She died in 2005.

Yahoo

21 minutes ago

• Yahoo

An inflation surge could swamp Trump's presidency. This one investment will keep your money safe.

America's financial outlook has darkened under President Donald Trump's leadership. All three major credit-rating agencies now rank U.S. federal debt one notch below triple-A, and Jamie Dimon, the chairman and CEO of JPMorgan Chase JPM, has warned of a crack in the U.S. bond market. With the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield BX:TMUBMUSD10Y at 4.4% on Wednesday and the 30-year rate BX:TMUBMUSD30Y at 4.9%, holders of nominal U.S. debt should be prepared for significant real losses. The principal risk is not U.S. sovereign default, but rather unexpected increases in medium- and long-term interest rates, owing to market expectations of higher inflation. Fiscal policy under Trump is unsustainable, as it was under former President Joe Biden — but even more so if the Trump administration's 'big, beautiful' budget passes in anything like its current form. 'I'm at my wit's end': My niece paid off her husband's credit card but fell behind on her taxes. How can I help her? Why the biggest-ever 'triple witching' options expiration could deliver a jolt to Friday's trading Israel-Iran clash delivers a fresh shock to investors. History suggests this is the move to make. 'I prepaid our mom's rent for a year': My sister is a millionaire and never helps our mother. How do I cut her out of her will? I'm 75 and have a reverse mortgage. Should I pay it off with my $200K savings — and live off Social Security instead? The January 2025 Financial Report of the United States Government makes this clear. The U.S. ratio of federal debt held by the public to GDP at the end of the 2024 fiscal year was around 98%, although $4.7 trillion of the $28.3 trillion in federal debt was held by the Federal Reserve — meaning it is erroneously categorized as held by the 'public,' when really the central bank's accounts should be consolidated with those of the federal government. Under current policy and based on the report's assumptions, federal debt held by the public would reach 535% of GDP by 2099. Stabilizing the U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio requires that the annual primary federal deficit (excluding interest payments) fall by an average of 4.3% of GDP over the next 75 years. And yet, the federal deficit and primary deficit were 6.4% and 3.3% of GDP, respectively, in fiscal-year 2024 — far above what can be justified with the economy near full employment. Read: America's debt is at a breaking point — Trump's tax bill might just push it over the edge With the U.S. Congress so dysfunctional, no one has any faith that it will deliver the required deficit reduction. Democrats do not do permanent spending cuts, and Republicans do not do permanent tax increases. The federal government does own about 28% of U.S. land (roughly 640 million acres), as well as other real commercial assets that could yield significant additional nontax revenues if properly managed. But neither party — nor even the misnamed Department of Government Efficiency — appears to have considered this option, so the federal deficit as a share of GDP is likely to rise over the next few years. With no foreseeable improvement in fiscal policy, there are two possible outcomes. First, the U.S. government could default. There has long been a small, but recurrent, risk of a technical, short-lived default if Congress fails to raise, suspend, extend, revise or abolish the federal debt ceiling on time. Fortunately, it has averted this scenario 78 times since 1960, and we expect it to continue doing so. As matters stand, the debt ceiling (including debt held by federal agencies) is set at $36.1 trillion, and debt subject to the limit is also $36.1 trillion. If needed, the Treasury has a highly liquid asset (the Treasury General Account held with the Fed) worth $332.9 billion that it can use to meet its obligations, and it may temporarily use 'extraordinary measures to continue to borrow additional amounts for a limited time.' The second, more likely possibility is that the Fed will monetize enough federal debt to prevent default. Since U.S. federal debt is serviced in dollars, 'printing money' is always an option. But, as the Fed well knows, a large-scale monetization of federal debt would result in significantly above-target inflation. We believe the Fed will do this without its operational independence being revoked by Trump. To get the Federal Open Market Committee to do something it does not want to do, the president would need to control the majority of its 12 voting members. These include the seven members of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors and five (out of 12) regional Federal Reserve Bank presidents who vote at any given FOMC meeting. Neither the president nor Congress can appoint or fire Federal Reserve Bank presidents. The Board of Governors must approve them, and only the board can remove them. The president nominates board members, but the Senate must confirm them. Board members' current term limits imply that, assuming none are fired, Trump will have the opportunity to nominate only two new members. True, with the power to fire board members 'for cause' — meaning 'inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance' — Trump could try to replace a majority of the members with loyalists. But this seems unlikely. Whether the 'for cause' criterion has been met will be contested in the courts, and the Senate would have to confirm Trump's appointees. Read: Trump's pick to replace Fed Chair Powell could rock your mortgage and retirement. Buckle up. Similarly, Congress could revise the Federal Reserve Act to replace the Fed's monetary-policy objectives with a mandate to buy or sell sovereign debt according to the wishes of the Treasury. But this, too, is unlikely. And the same goes for a scenario in which the Treasury sets a rapidly depreciating exchange-rate target for the dollar DXY that can be achieved only through large-scale Fed purchases of U.S. public debt that generate high inflation. However, fiscal dominance — indeed, fiscal capture — is very likely, because the need to avoid a domestic and global financial crisis will force the FOMC's hand. It will do whatever is necessary to prevent a U.S. government default, because the Fed's financial-stability mandate (the Financial Stability Act of 2010 mentions the Fed 179 times) undoubtedly trumps its monetary-policy mandate of maintaining maximum employment, stable prices and moderate long-term interest rates. The Fed cannot credibly threaten to refuse to monetize debt and deficits to compel fiscal retrenchment by the Treasury, let alone Congress. Thus, the Fed will have no choice but to engage in sovereign-debt purchases that it knows to be incompatible with its monetary-policy objectives. With nominal interest rates for medium- and long-term U.S. sovereign debt far below the levels consistent with realistic expectations of future inflation, serious capital losses on nominal debt instruments (public and private) are likely. The inflation surge could be no more than three years away. As the prospect of fiscal capture comes into view, investing in Treasury inflation-protected securities (TIPS) and other indexed public and private debt instruments will become increasingly attractive. Willem H. Buiter, a former chief economist at Citibank and former member of the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England, is an independent economic adviser. Anne C. Sibert is professor emerita of economics at Birkbeck, University of London. This commentary — 'U.S. Debt Holders Should Brace for Impact' — is published with the permission of Project Syndicate. Read: 'You are going to panic,' Jamie Dimon tells regulators about what will happen when the bond market cracks More: What's at stake if world's most powerful market finally buckles after decades-long U.S. debt splurge 20 companies in the S&P 500 whose investors have gained the greatest rewards from stock buybacks Israel-Iran conflict poses three challenges for stocks that could slam market by up to 20%, warns RBC I'm 51, earn $129K and have $165K in my 401(k). Can I afford to retire when my husband, 59, draws Social Security at 62? 'It might be another Apple or Microsoft': My wife invested $100K in one stock and it exploded 1,500%. Do we sell? Why the stock market will be performing a high-wire act over the summer, according to UBS

Bloomberg

23 minutes ago

• Bloomberg

Bloomberg Surveillance: Israel, Markets, Supply Chains

Watch Tom and Paul LIVE every day on YouTube: Bloomberg Surveillance hosted by Tom Keene & Paul Sweeney June 20th, 2025 Featuring: 1) Dan Williams, Bloomberg News reporter, on President Donald Trump signaling he would give diplomacy a chance before deciding whether to strike Iran, dialing back on recent comments that suggested military action could be imminent. 2) David Katz, President and CIO of Matrix Asset Advisors, on why he is hopeful there will be some clarity in the current conflict in the upcoming months. After that, however, we will then return to the week to week and month to month uncertainties with Tariff and the current tax and spending bill that's making its way through congress. 3) Alisa Rusanoff, CEO at Eltech, on what risks lender are currently facing in the shipping space. 4) Lisa Mateo joins with the latest headlines in newspapers across the US, including a WSJ story on how side hustles nowadays are more about necessity than a passion. Plus, a Bloomberg report about Capital One's New JFK Lounge Makes a Play for Premium Travelers