What is the War Powers Act, and what does it mean for President Trump on Iran?
President Donald Trump's decision to order U.S. airstrikes on three nuclear sites in Iran June 21 brought immediate questions from some lawmakers on both sides of the aisle about whether he had acted within his authority.
Under Trump's direction, the U.S. effectively joins a 10-day-old war initiated when Israel began bombing Iran's nuclear and military infrastructure. The president has said repeatedly that he did not want to get involved in conflict in the Middle East but that "Iran can't have a nuclear weapon."
Some lawmakers, including staunch conservatives and prominent progressives, are calling the move a breach of the Constitution.
"The President's disastrous decision to bomb Iran without authorization is a grave violation of the Constitution and Congressional War Powers," Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-New York, posted on X.
The Constitution puts the power to declare war in Congress' hands, and the War Powers Resolution of 1973 requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of military action. The law also limits the deployment of armed forces beyond 90 days in the absence of a formal declaration of war.
Asked at a Pentagon news conference early June 22 when Congress was made aware of the strikes, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said: "They were notified after the planes were safely out. But we complied with the notification requirements of the War Powers Act."
Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Kentucky, responded to Trump's social media assessment of the attack with the statement "This is not Constitutional."
Massie and Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna of California filed a measure June 17 that is based on the War Powers Act and seeks to block "unauthorized hostilities" in Iran.
"Stopping Iran from having a nuclear bomb is a top priority, but dragging the U.S. into another Middle East war is not the solution," Khanna said in a statement. "Trump's strikes are unconstitutional and put Americans, especially our troops, at risk."
Some of Trump's strongest supporters also have cautioned against conflict abroad.
"Every time America is on the verge of greatness, we get involved in another foreign war," Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene wrote in a post shortly before the U.S. bombings.
Contributing: Kim Hjelmgaard
(This story has been updated to fix typos)
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: War Powers Act explained; lawmakers push back on Trump
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBS News
28 minutes ago
- CBS News
Judge orders Kilmar Abrego Garcia's release before trial, but he will likely be detained by ICE
A Tennessee judge on Sunday ordered the release of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, whose mistaken deportation has become a flashpoint in President Trump's immigration crackdown, while he awaits a federal trial on human smuggling charges. But he is not expected to be allowed to go free. At his June 13 detention hearing, prosecutors said U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement would take Abrego Garcia into custody if he were released on the criminal charges, and he could be deported before he has a chance to stand trial. U.S. Magistrate Judge Barbara Holmes has scheduled a hearing for Wednesday to discuss the conditions of Abrego Garcia's release. The U.S. government has already filed a motion to appeal the judge's release order. Holmes acknowledged in her ruling Sunday that determining whether Abrego Garcia should be released is "little more than an academic exercise" because ICE will likely detain him. But the judge wrote that everyone is entitled to the presumption of innocence and "a full and fair determination of whether he must remain in federal custody pending trial." Holmes wrote that the government failed to prove that Abrego was a flight risk, that he posed a danger to the community or that he would interfere with proceedings if released. "Overall, the Court cannot find from the evidence presented that Abrego's release clearly and convincingly poses an irremediable danger to other persons or to the community," the judge wrote. Abrego Garcia has pleaded not guilty to the smuggling charges that his attorneys have characterized as an attempt to justify the deportation mistake after the fact. The acting U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Tennessee, Rob McGuire, argued on June 13 that the likely attempt by ICE to try to deport him was one reason to keep him in jail. But Holmes said then that she had no intention of "getting in the middle of any ICE hold." "If I elect to release Mr. Abrego, I will impose conditions of release, and the U.S. Marshal will release him." If he is released into ICE custody, that is "above my pay grade," she said. The judge suggested that the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security could work out between themselves whether the government's priority is to try him on the criminal charges or deport him. No date has been set for the trial. Will Allensworth, an assistant federal public defender representing Abrego Garcia at the detention hearing, told Holmes that "it's not necessarily accurate that he would be immediately deported." A 2019 immigration judge's order prevents Abrego Garcia, who had been living in Maryland, from being deported to his home country of El Salvador, Allensworth said in court. That's because he faces a credible threat from gangs there, according to court papers. The government could deport him to a third country, but immigration officials would first be required to show that third country was willing to keep him and not simply deport him back to El Salvador, Allensworth said. The smuggling charges stem from a 2022 traffic stop for speeding in Tennessee during which Abrego Garcia was driving a vehicle with nine passengers. Although officers suspected possible smuggling, he was allowed to go on his way with only a warning. At the detention hearing, McGuire said cooperating witnesses have accused Abrego Garcia of trafficking drugs and firearms and of abusing the women he transported, among other claims. Although he is not charged with such crimes, McGuire said they showed Abrego Garcia to be a dangerous person who should remain in jail pretrial. Abrego Garcia's attorneys have characterized the smuggling case as a desperate attempt to justify the mistaken deportation. The investigation was launched weeks after the U.S. government deported Abrego Garcia and the Supreme Court ordered the administration to facilitate his return amid mounting public pressure. Chris Newman, an attorney who represents Abrego Garcia's family, previously told CBS News, "The Trump administration is very invested in making this a referendum on the immigration debate, which, as you know, has become coarsened and polarized." "And that is one way to look at it. And I think certainly a lot of people view it that way. I don't view it that way. I view this as a core constitutional order case, a core due process case," Newman said. "And it just so happens that a Salvadoran immigrant is defending bedrock constitutional protections for all of us." Most people in ICE custody who are facing criminal charges are not kept in the U.S. for trial but deported, Ohio State University law professor César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández said. The U.S. will likely try to deport Abrego Garcia quickly without going before an immigration judge, the professor said. The government would not need a conviction to deport him because Abrego Garcia came to the U.S. illegally. "The legal standard is laxer," García Hernández said. "The government's argument is on stronger legal footing." However an immigration judge rules, the decision can be appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, García Hernández said. And the board's ruling can then be contested in a federal appeals court.
Fox News
31 minutes ago
- Fox News
ISIS behind deadly church suicide bombing near Damascus, Syrian interior minister says
The Islamic State is believed to be behind a deadly suicide bombing that happened at a Greek Orthodox church in Syria on Sunday. At least 22 people were killed, and 63 others were injured in the attack that took place at the Mar Elias Church in Dweil'a – on the outskirts of Damascus. It reportedly began while people were praying. The perpetrator first opened fire on the worshipers, before detonating himself. While no group immediately claimed responsibility for the mass-casualty attack, Syrian Interior Ministry spokesman Noureddine Al-Baba suggested ISIS as a likely culprit following a preliminary investigation. "The security of places of worship is a red line," Al-Baba said further, castigating ISIS and what remains of the former government of Ba'athist dictator Bashar al-Assad as actors trying to destabilize Syria. The country's foreign ministry echoed Al-Baba, describing the attack as "a desperate attempt to undermine national coexistence and to destabilize the country." The attack comes amid a time of heightened political unrest in the notoriously volatile Middle East – less than 24 hours after the U.S. launched airstrikes on three of Iran's top nuclear facilities. Israel launched a series of similar attacks, including attacks on the Iranian capital, Tehran, in the weeks prior.
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Oil hits five-month high after US hits key Iranian nuclear sites
SINGAPORE (Reuters) -Oil prices jumped on Monday to their highest since January as Washington's weekend move to join Israel in attacking Iran's nuclear facilities stoked supply worries. Brent crude futures rose $1.88 or 2.44% at $78.89 a barrel as of 1122 GMT. U.S. West Texas Intermediate crude advanced $1.87 or 2.53% at $75.71. Both contracts jumped by more than 3% earlier in the session to $81.40 and $78.40, respectively, five-month highs, before giving up some gains. The rise in prices came after U.S. President Donald Trump said he had "obliterated" Iran's main nuclear sites in strikes over the weekend, joining an Israeli assault in an escalation of conflict in the Middle East as Tehran vowed to defend itself. Iran is OPEC's third-largest crude producer. Market participants expect further price gains amid mounting fears that an Iranian retaliation may include a closure of the Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly a fifth of global crude supply flows. Iran's Press TV reported that the Iranian parliament approved a measure to close the strait. Iran has in the past threatened to close the strait but has never followed through on the move. "The risks of damage to oil infrastructure ... have multiplied," said Sparta Commodities senior analyst June Goh. Although there are alternative pipeline routes out of the region, there will still be crude volumes that cannot be fully exported out if the Strait of Hormuz becomes inaccessible. Shippers will increasingly stay out of the region, she added. Brent has risen 13% since the conflict began on June 13, while WTI has gained around 10%. The current geopolitical risk premium is unlikely to last without tangible supply disruptions, analysts said. Meanwhile, the unwinding of some of the long positions accumulated following a recent price rally could cap an upside to oil prices, Ole Hansen, head of commodity strategy at Saxo Bank, wrote in a market commentary on Sunday.
