Explained: Can Trump go to war in Iran without approval from US Congress?

With US President Donald Trump ordering air strikes on three nuclear facilities in Iran—Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan—debate has intensified over the limits of presidential war powers. The strikes, the boldest US intervention yet in the Iran-Israel conflict, have not been accompanied by a formal declaration of war—prompting legal and political scrutiny in Washington.
Could Trump be impeached for bypassing Congress? And what role does the War Powers Resolution of 1973 play in curbing presidential overreach?
Why War Powers Resolution was introduced in 1973
The War Powers Resolution (WPR), also known as the War Powers Act, was passed in 1973 in the aftermath of the Vietnam War—a prolonged conflict that saw major US involvement without a formal declaration of war.
The resolution was designed to prevent the President from unilaterally engaging American forces in hostilities without Congressional oversight. It sought to restore the balance of power by:
Requiring the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying troops
Mandating the withdrawal of troops within 60 days unless Congress approves their continued presence
Allowing a 30-day grace period for safe withdrawal
What US Constitution says about declaring war
The US Constitution clearly assigns Congress the sole authority to declare war (Article I, Section 8), while naming the President as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces (Article II, Section 2).
This division was meant to ensure that decisions to enter large-scale military conflicts reflect democratic consensus. In practice, however, modern Presidents have increasingly relied on executive authority to conduct military operations without formal war declarations.
Presidential precedents and Trump's Iran strike
The US has not declared war since World War II, but has engaged in several major conflicts—Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan—without Congressional war declarations. Trump's own administration has previously carried out strikes in Syria (2017 and 2018) without Congressional approval.
In the case of Iran, Trump has framed the air strikes as necessary to prevent Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons. US officials say the attacks were 'limited, targeted, and in coordination with Israel'—and not indicative of a wider war effort.
Could Trump be impeached over war in Iran?
In theory, yes. If Congress believes the President has violated the Constitution or laws such as the War Powers Resolution, it can initiate impeachment proceedings. However, such action would depend heavily on political will.
Past presidents—including Barack Obama, George W Bush and Ronald Reagan—have conducted military operations without Congressional declarations of war, and none faced impeachment for it. Legal scholars remain divided over whether violation of the WPR alone constitutes a 'high crime or misdemeanour' under the Constitution's impeachment clause.
If Trump were to escalate the Iran conflict into a prolonged war without Congressional authorisation, and if it provokes significant domestic or international fallout, political calls for impeachment could grow louder. However, removal would still require a majority in the House and a two-thirds vote in the Senate—a high bar.
Amid mounting tensions with Iran, US lawmakers—both Democrats and some Republicans—have sought to pass resolutions limiting Trump's ability to wage war. These efforts, while symbolically important, face procedural delays and are unlikely to override a presidential veto.
The constitutional ambiguity persists: while Congress alone can declare war, the President can, and often does, launch military action unilaterally—especially if framed as a defensive or time-sensitive measure.
What happens next?
As of now, Trump has insisted the US does not seek regime change in Iran and has framed the strikes as a 'historic moment' to halt nuclear escalation. Iran, meanwhile, has vowed retaliation and hinted at broader regional consequences.
If the US becomes drawn into a longer, bloodier conflict, pressure may mount on Congress to act—whether through legislation, funding restrictions, or impeachment. Until then, the line between presidential authority and Congressional war power remains blurred.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Indian Express

31 minutes ago

• Indian Express

‘Midnight Hammer' to Strait of Hormuz: 10 new developments after US bombs Iran's nuclear facilities

Tensions between the United States, Iran, and Israel escalated dramatically on Sunday after US airstrikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, which President Donald Trump claimed had 'completely and fully obliterated' key sites. The attacks have triggered a deadly wave of retaliatory strikes, international condemnation, and fears of a wider regional war. On Saturday night, US President Donald Trump confirmed that the US military had struck three of Iran's nuclear sites—Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. Trump declared the facilities 'completely and fully obliterated." Senior Pentagon officials on Sunday detailed a highly secretive and coordinated military operation against Iran, calling it a demonstration of American air and naval power at its most effective. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, both spoke publicly, though neither could confirm whether Iran retained the ability to produce a nuclear weapon. Hegseth reiterated President Trump's claim from the previous night that the nuclear sites had been 'obliterated.' General Caine did not. Caine said a final battle damage assessment was still pending, but initial reports indicated that all three targeted Iranian nuclear sites had sustained 'severe damage and destruction.' A US official has confirmed that B-2 bombers flew non-stop for 37 hours from Missouri to carry out the strikes. The global nuclear watchdog, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), has said that there has been 'no radiation leak' from any nuclear facility in Pakistan after the escalated military engagement with India. The Vienna-based global nuclear watchdog's reply, to a query from The Indian Express, ties in with the earlier response by the Indian Air Force that India has not hit any target in Pakistan's Kirana Hills, which is reported to house some nuclear installations. Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi announced on Sunday that he will travel to Moscow later in the day to meet Russian President Vladimir Putin on Monday morning. In a post on X, Araghchi condemned the United States, accusing it of a grave violation of the UN Charter, international law, and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) by attacking Iran's nuclear facilities. A representative of Iran's Supreme Leader said it is now Iran's turn to respond. He called for missile strikes on US naval forces in Bahrain and closure of the Strait of Hormuz to Western vessels. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi warned, 'They crossed a very big red line… We have to respond based on our legitimate right for self-defence." Several areas in central and northern Israel, including Nes Ziona, Rishon Lezion, Haifa, and a neighbourhood in Tel Aviv, were struck by Iranian missiles, according to Israeli state media and Fars News Agency. Videos show significant destruction in Tel Aviv. Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps warned the US to 'expect regrettable responses' in response to its strikes on Tehran's nuclear sites, state TV reported. Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu praised Trump, calling the strike 'a pivot of history.' UN Secretary-General António Guterres warned of 'a dangerous escalation,' and Pakistan condemned the US strike. Oman, previously mediating talks, called the attack a 'serious violation of international law. Iran's ambassador to the UN, Amir Saeid Iravani, has also called for an emergency Security Council meeting. In a letter to the UN, he described the US strikes as 'heinous attacks and illegal use of force.' Russia has "strongly condemned" bombings, calling the attacks "irresponsible" and a "gross violation of international law". Iran's Parliament has approved the closing of the Strait of Hormuz, though the final decision will be taken by the Supreme National Security Council, Iran's Press TV reported. The Strait is in the territorial waters of Iran and Oman, and accounts for a big bulk of the world's oil trade. Iran has in the past threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz on multiple occasions, but has never actually done it. The heightened risk of the closure is bound to raise concerns globally, including in India, particularly with regard to oil and gas supply security, and could lead to a jump in energy prices. India is the world's third-largest consumer of crude oil and depends on imports to meet over 85 per cent of its requirement. Israel closed its airspace as a precaution after the US strikes, though land crossings into Egypt and Jordan remain open, according to the Israel Airports Authority. Trump, speaking Sunday, said no military 'could have done what the US military has done.' He warned Iran of 'far greater' future attacks if it does not choose peace. 'There will either be peace or tragedy for Iran,' he said, adding that he acted 'as a team' with Netanyahu. The 'bunker buster' MOP is designed to attack 'deeply-buried facilities and hardened bunkers and tunnels' and is meant to destroy targets in well-protected facilities. Israel, or any country other than the US, does not have any non-nuclear weapon systems that can penetrate a site as deep as Fordow. A never-before-used American bomb — the GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator, or MOP — which is extremely heavy and can only be dropped using the B-2 Spirit stealth bomber aircraft of the US Air Force was used for the bombing. The latest strike seems to have achieved that target, even though the extent of damage at Fordow is still under speculation, primarily because of the depth of the enrichment site.

Indian Express

36 minutes ago

• Indian Express

Jaikrishn trapped as part of a political conspiracy: BAP

Over a month and a half after Bharat Adivasi Party (BAP) MLA Jaikrishn Patel was caught allegedly taking a Rs 20 lakh bribe, the party said Sunday that it has concluded in its internal investigation that he was trapped as part of a 'political conspiracy'. Party's national president Mohan Lal Roat told The Indian Express that there are plenty of things pointing towards a political conspiracy. 'There are discrepancies in the press conference by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (following Patel's arrest) and the FIR lodged in the case. It is said there were about 48 calls between the two (MLA Patel and complainant Ravindra Kumar). But our MLA replied 1-2 times but most of the calls were by him (Kumar).' Next, Roat questioned the idea of money being given in lieu of 'withdrawing' three Assembly questions when two of these were already answered last year and were in the public domain. 'What was the idea behind taking money to 'withdraw' the questions put up in July last year, when the government had clearly and promptly answered those questions.' Party MP Rajkumar Roat too has questioned the circumstances, saying, 'Since 1952, there must have been about 3,000 MLAs in Rajasthan; excluding those who repeated, there must have been 2,000 to 2,500 MLAs so far in the state. But this was the first time an MLA was trapped. From what our team has investigated, he was trapped as part of a conspiracy.' 'The person on the other end called 40-42 times. Why would the person, who was the MLA candidate for the now ruling party, get scared and give a bribe to the MLA of a regional party? This was planning and this was a conspiracy,' the MP said, referring to complainant Ravindra Kumar's father Ramniwas Meena. While Ravindra Kumar had contested 2023 Assembly elections from Karauli as a BSP candidate and stood third – behind BJP and Congress candidates – his father, Ramniwas Meena and co-owner of the mines, had contested the 2023 election from Todabhim on a BJP ticket but lost to Congress's Ghanshyam Mahar. On May 4, first-time MLA Patel, and a middleman Vijay Patel were arrested by the ACB for allegedly accepting a Rs 20-lakh bribe – the second instalment of a Rs 2.5 crore bribe – in lieu of withdrawing Assembly questions on mining. The ACB had said this was the first instance of it arresting an MLA in the state, and the mines in question are in Todabhim, about 600 kilometres away from the MLA's constituency in Banswara. Party chief Roat said that things would be clearer once they get to meet the MLA. 'We haven't been able to meet the MLA. They are not giving us time to meet, (but once this happens) this will help us clear more things. Moreover, the BJP candidate too had said that he won't let him (Patel) stay around for more than six months,' he said, referring to BJP leader Mahendrajeet Singh Malviya. 'So, due to all of this, we have concluded that he was trapped as part of a conspiracy,' the party chief said. Malviya was elected from Bagidora Assembly in 2023 on a Congress ticket but had left the party to join the BJP last year. He had then unsuccessfully contested the Banswara Lok Sabha (which includes Bagidora Assembly) against BAP's Rajkumar Roat. In the Bagidora bypoll too, BAP's Jaikrishn had defeated BJP's Subhash Tamboliya by a convincing margin of over 51,000 votes. The party's five-member team which investigated the case included party's three MLAs Umesh Meena (Aaspur), Thavar Chand (Dhariyawad), Anil Kumar Katara (Chorasi), party's national spokesperson Jitendra Meena, and party leader Kanti Bhai. MP Roat also said that Patel was 'trapped by people in power as part of a conspiracy. And the people have understood, because the Panchayat Samiti seat which the BJP had won earlier with 600 votes, lost in the by-election. The people have given a befitting reply.' 'We know that if he has made a mistake then his membership might be terminated. But we will have more clarity only once we meet him, and what is said in the chargesheet etc,' party's national president Mohan Lal Roat said.

India.com

37 minutes ago

• India.com

Why Netanyahu Thanked Donald Trump in English After US Bombed Irans Nuclear Facilities?

New Delhi: On Sunday morning, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the nation not in Hebrew but in English. The unusual choice was not accidental. His message was meant for more than just Israelis. Netanyahu was delivering an update on the latest developments in the conflict between Israel and Iran. And during that address, he praised U.S. President Donald Trump for authorising the bombing of Iranian nuclear sites. There was a noticeable sense of triumph in Netanyahu's voice. A faint smile lingered on his face. And perhaps it was fitting. He has spent much of his political life warning the world that Iran poses an existential threat to Israel. For over 15 years, he has lobbied U.S. presidents, diplomats and defense chiefs to consider military action as the only real answer to Iran's nuclear ambitions. Now, he stood before cameras as American B-2 bombers struck Iranian facilities. And he called Trump's decision 'historic' and 'bold'. He may as well have congratulated himself. After all, Netanyahu had managed to shift the stance of Trump, who had long campaigned against foreign military entanglements and whose conservative voter base had shown little enthusiasm for any war involving Israel. This moment did not arrive without internal resistance. U.S. intelligence agencies had long questioned Israel's claim that Iran was racing toward a nuclear bomb. They had not seen concrete evidence that Tehran had made that decision. And yet, despite these doubts, American warplanes were now targeting Iranian facilities. From the beginning of this conflict, now entering its second week, Israeli officials repeatedly insisted that they could handle Iran alone. But behind closed doors, it was clear that only American weaponry could breach the kind of hardened underground bunkers where Iran had placed its key nuclear assets. Especially in Fordow, the site buried deep within a mountain. If the sites bombed on June 22 morning are truly out of commission, Netanyahu will feel he has reached a turning point. For him, this may be the closest moment yet to declaring victory in a long battle. However, Iran claims it had already removed its nuclear material from the sites before the strikes. That claim will be hard to verify anytime soon. Without U.S. involvement, Israel would have continued chipping away at targets across Iran, its military leaders, nuclear scientists, infrastructure and enrichment sites. But there was never going to be a moment of closure. Unless, perhaps, regime change happened in Tehran. 'America Will Hit Back With Full Force' The B-2 jets may have changed the shape of this conflict. But whether this becomes an ending or a deeper escalation now depends on Iran and its allies. Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had warned last week that any U.S. involvement would trigger retaliation. 'Americans must understand that any interference by their forces will lead to irreparable damage,' he said. His words may soon be tested. On June 21, Yemen's Houthi rebels, staunch allies of Tehran, threatened to attack U.S. vessels in the Red Sea if Washington escalated its role in the war. With that, U.S. troops, embassies and civilians across the Middle East could all become potential targets. Iran has a variety of options. It could strike U.S. bases in the Gulf. It could disrupt oil shipping routes – spiking global fuel prices. Or it could activate proxy groups across Syria, Lebanon, Iraq or beyond. The United States, for now, says its military operation is over. There is no appetite in Washington for toppling the Iranian government. That message could be a quiet invitation for Iran to keep its response limited. Tehran might choose symbolic retaliation – strikes that send a message without triggering a full-scale war. That is how Iran responded back in 2020, when Trump ordered the killing of General Qassem Soleimani. Iran launched a barrage of missiles at U.S. bases, but casualties were minimal. Still, on June 21 night, Trump issued a fresh warning, saying any retaliation from Iran would be met with overwhelming force. And now, on June 22 morning, the Middle East holds its breath – wondering whether this was the beginning of a resolution, or just the calm before a more devastating storm.