Presidents' ordering military action without Congress' approval has become routine. Here's why.
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump's decision to order strikes in Iran — among the most consequential he has made as commander in chief — is the latest example of a U.S. president's taking military action without first seeking congressional approval. And experts say that, while his power over American armed forces isn't absolute, there's most likely little lawmakers will do.
Trump is supposed to submit to Congress a legal justification for having bombed Iran's nuclear facilities within 48 hours after the operation began. Unlike tangible consequences Trump has faced for other moves in which he tested the bounds of executive power — such as court rulings against him — any price he might pay for this decision would largely play out in the American political arena and on the world stage, where the U.S. reputation is on the line.
'Presidents over the last 25 years have certainly been stretching the envelope of presidential authority to use force,' John Bellinger, adjunct senior fellow for international and national security law at the Council on Foreign Relations, told NBC News. 'Using force more and more, deploying the military more and more, without congressional authority — and Congress, with a few persistent objectors, has simply acquiesced in that.'
The limits on presidential power to use military force are set out in sections of the U.S. Constitution, the War Powers Resolution of 1973 and the United Nations Charter.
Article 1 of the Constitution makes it clear: Congress — and no other part of the federal government — has the power to declare war. But that's something Congress hasn't formally done in more than 80 years, since World War II.
While Congress has approved what are called Authorizations of Military Force and appropriated funds to assist in ongoing conflicts, its ability to control when the nation is at war has been diminished, in part by its own actions, while the power of the office of the president has expanded.
The War Powers Resolution of 1973 is a law designed to provide a check on the president's power to involve the United States in military action without the consent of Congress. It was passed over President Richard Nixon's veto in the wake of the Vietnam War, which Congress never actually declared as a war, though it did authorize force in the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.
According to the War Powers Resolution, 'in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced' when war hasn't been declared, the president has 48 hours to notify, in writing, the speaker of the House and the Senate president pro tempore. The act requires that the notification include why the president took the action, the authority under which it was taken and 'the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.' And the resolution also says any time a president uses the armed forces without notifying Congress beforehand, that use must be terminated within 60 days.
Bellinger said any notification to Congress that Trump sends, which Bellinger told NBC News the Justice Department is likely to prepare, will probably rely on the authority granted to the president in Article II of the Constitution, which makes the president the commander in chief. President Joe Biden cited Article II in 2021 after he ordered strikes in Iraq and Syria that he said were targeting an 'Iranian-backed militia group responsible for recent attacks on U.S. personnel in Iraq.'
Though Congress acted after the U.S. withdrew from Vietnam to restrain presidents in their use of military force, recent decades have seen presidents push against those restraints.
On March 23, 1999, the Senate approved NATO airstrikes against what was then Yugoslavia to force a Serbian withdrawal from the province of Kosovo. But when the strikes began 24 hours later, the House had yet to approve the resolution, and a month later, in a tie vote, it rejected the Senate resolution amid increased concerns of greater U.S. military involvement in the area.
In March 2011, a coalition of NATO forces, which included the United States, began a military campaign to intervene in the Libyan civil war to protect civilians. While President Barack Obama ordered it, he didn't seek advance approval from Congress. By June, the House had passed a resolution calling for a withdrawal of U.S. troops from the region and demanded that the Obama administration explain why it didn't ask Congress for permission first.
In April 2017, during Trump's first term, he didn't seek congressional authorization before he ordered a missile strike in Syria in response to the Syrian government's use of chemical weapons. 'It is in this vital national security interest of the United States to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons,' he said in televised remarks after the strikes.
Bellinger, who helped draft Authorizations for Military Force under President George W. Bush, said it isn't always that way. On Jan. 12, 1991, the Senate voted in favor of a resolution authorizing the use of military force against Iraq in response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, after President George H.W. Bush asked it to do so. In September 2001 and again in October 2002, President George W. Bush asked Congress to authorize the use of armed force, first in response to the Sept. 11 attacks and then to target Saddam Hussein and his Iraqi government.
'To strike a country like Iran, I think this does go far beyond what other presidents have done,' Bellinger said.
Congress, however, may not have the appetite to fight Trump over it.
'Given that a lot of people in Congress tend not to want to buck the president or obviously some of them agree with his actions anyway,' Curtis Bradley, a professor at University of Chicago Law School, said in an interview, 'it seems unlikely at the moment that Congress would, you know, use its statutory powers to try to end or restrict the conflict.'
U.S. courts are also unlikely to get involved. The judicial branch has limited authority over a president when it comes to his decisions about military action and the use of force.
'The lower courts, when they get these cases, tend to say, sorry, this is very complicated,' Bradley said. 'They say it's really to be resolved by the political institutions and not the courts.'
'Even if it is unconstitutional, I don't see it's likely that courts will be the ones to police that,' he added.
International law, including the U.N. Charter, lays out very clearly what is and isn't justified when a country decides to use force.
Article II of the U.N. Charter orders 'all members' to settle their international disputes 'by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.'
While a separate section of the U.N. Charter allows for military action to be taken in self-defense, experts say, that argument will be harder for the Trump administration to make in this scenario.
'The idea that you could just ... attack because, in the long run, you think your strategic interests will be harmed does not fit with the charter under anybody's reasonable definition of self-defense,' Bradley said.
But what does a violation of the U.N. Charter mean? Not much, experts say.
'It wouldn't be the first time, unfortunately, where the U.S. is doing something that probably violates the charter,' Bradley said. 'That ends up being more about diplomacy, rather than something that would directly stop a president from acting.'
Bellinger believes that even without any direct domestic or international legal consequences, the implications of Trump's decisions are wide-ranging. 'It's going to be more of a political cost at home, and it's going to be more of a reputational cost for the United States around the world.'
This article was originally published on NBCNews.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
8 minutes ago
- Washington Post
‘America is not necessarily a guarantee. It never is.'
Jose Antonio Vargas made headlines in 2011 when he revealed in an essay for the New York Times Magazine that he was an undocumented immigrant. Vargas had come to the United States from the Philippines at age 12 to live with his grandparents, only learning years later that he had done so illegally. In the essay, Vargas described coming of age and launching his career in journalism — including at The Washington Post, where he was part of the Pulitzer Prize-winning team that covered the Virginia Tech shootings — all while living in fear that he would be found out. 'I'm done running,' he wrote. 'I'm exhausted. I don't want that life anymore.' Vargas, who founded the nonprofit advocacy organization Define American, expanded on the essay in his memoir, 'Dear America: Notes From an Undocumented Citizen.' First published in 2018, the book was among the earliest entries in what's now a growing canon that explores the experiences of undocumented immigrants, including work by Dan-el Padilla Peralta, Javier Zamora, Karla Cornejo Villavicencio, Cristina Jiménez and Jill Damatac. This month, amid high-profile public clashes over President Donald Trump's immigration policies and enforcement, Vargas released a new edition of 'Dear America.' It includes a new epilogue, in which he recounts leaving the United States for the first time since his arrival so he can become documented. Vargas and I spoke over the phone while he was in New York getting ready to promote the book. Our conversation has been edited for length and clarity. It's an interesting time to revisit this material. How does it feel to prepare to go out and talk about the book again? You know, I wrote this book during the first Trump administration. I actually was living in downtown Los Angeles. The apartment building manager would see me on TV — because back then I used to go on Fox and other shows, talking about immigration — and when Trump was elected, the building manager literally said to me: 'I'm not sure what we would do if ICE were to come to the building and get you. I'm not sure we can protect you here.' I was so rattled by the conversation that I actually moved out of the building and then put everything I own in storage and didn't have a place. That was when I started writing. [laughs] I have to tell you, the thing that's probably been the most surprising about this book is — and I'm so thankful that so many teachers and professors have assigned it to their students — I would get messages on Instagram saying, 'Oh my God, thank you so much — the book is so short! Did you know that teachers would assign it, and students don't want to read long books.' And I'm like, 'No, that's not why. It's written the way that it's written because I wanted to capture the rhythm of a life on the run.' So this goes to your question: In some ways, given what's happening in Los Angeles and in the country — the interior life of being an undocumented person, and the fact that you have to lie, you have to pass, you have to hide, that's as relevant and urgent as ever. What was the impetus for releasing a new edition? It happened right around the election, after Trump was elected president. Wow — so it was fast? Oh yeah. I was texting with Carrie Thornton, the head of Dey Street Books. And at the time, I did not tell Carrie — because I didn't tell really a lot of people; I didn't tell my own family — that I was going through this process [to apply for a visa], that I was about to leave the U.S. for the first time in my life. I told her that given that Trump was just elected again, that this was going to get even worse. In the back of the book, there's a QR code that leads to a list of organizations across the country to donate to, to volunteer at — and we're going to keep adding to it. Because I think more than ever, all politics is local. In the new epilogue, you write — I think in a moment of optimism — that you think Americans are movable on immigration. But it seems that in the last few years, anti-immigrant sentiment grew significantly. And in 2024, immigration appears to have been one of the main issues driving non-White voters to the Republican Party. What have you seen in your advocacy that makes you think the tide could shift the other way? We, meaning people on the pro-immigrant side, have not invested in what, at Define America, we call 'the movable middle.' Our research has found that a large portion of Americans across racial and ethnic backgrounds fall between party lines on immigration. We work with this research firm called Harmony Labs, going beyond demographics to describe audiences. So, for example, there are people who are social role followers, who are interested in culture and invested in the local communities. There are churchgoers who respect authority and are interested in helping others. There are autonomous pleasure seekers interested in fun, play, relaxation. Then there's the DIY go-getters. We actually got specific and looked at these four types of audiences. We found the strategies that we know can move people. Guess what? Journalists are irrelevant to them, for the most part; social media are shaping their worldviews. We found that national news is less important for these people than it is for the base and opposition. We also learned that stories told by immigrants themselves resonate deeply, and that telling narratives centered on food, sport and comedy is way more effective than overtly political or policy-driven content. The book now ends with your traveling to Mexico, applying for a D-3 waiver, and getting an O visa. How has becoming documented changed the way you go about your life? To be honest, I'm still, I think, adjusting to that reality. The biggest change was getting a real ID. You know, I live on Alaska and Delta airlines. I go back and forth between New York and the Bay Area. I travel a lot, speaking to groups, going to places that maybe I'm not supposed to be going to in the country because people are not as welcoming to immigrants. So that's a really big, practical change. The visa is valid for three years and then I have to renew it. And I think that's kind of where I'm at with that — just trying to understand that America is not necessarily a guarantee. It never is. Home is a big theme of the book; it's literally the first line and the last line. It took me being outside of the country, being in Mexico, applying for this visa — I think that was when I realized just how much of my identity, and how I think of myself, is tied to this country. I think at some point you described yourself as in an 'abusive, co-dependent relationship with America.' Right, I'm in a toxic relationship with America! I think that's kind of where I'm still at. Look, I started this journey when I was 30, when I came out as undocumented and started Define American. I'm knocking on 45 in the next few months. For me, how do I define success, how do I define happiness, how I define belonging in a way that's not tied to a piece of paper or a piece of legislation? That's become something that I have to grapple with. Am I waiting, how long is it going to take, for me to be a citizen? That's why the word 'citizen' is underlined [on the cover of the book]. To me, that's the conversation: What is the cost and the responsibility of being a citizen of this country? There are many millions of people who are not citizens legally, who in many ways are more American because we have had to endure. I was struck by this line from the original edition, where you get quite personal. You say: 'I feel like a thing. A thing to be explained and understood, tolerated and accepted. A thing that spends too much time educating people so it doesn't have to educate itself on what it has become. I feel like a thing that can't just be.' It sort of suggested that you didn't feel there was space for you to explore what you wanted from life, because you were expending all this energy outward, figuring out how you're perceived and how to navigate various systems. Do you still feel that way? That, to me, is actually one of my core challenges: How do I not be defined solely by my immigration status? As I meet young people who are undocumented themselves, I don't want to surrender to that. I don't want to surrender to the master narrative of being 'an illegal alien.' That's why I thought the epilogue was really important. I so believe in following a process that, what did I do? I left the country, after 31 years of living here, with no guarantee that I'd be allowed back in — all so I can follow a process. How many times, when we talk about undocumented people, do you hear about a process to legalize them? None! So, as much as possible, I don't want to be this thing that has to keep explaining itself — and yet, I know that the freedom of people like me is directly proportional to how ignorant people are.
Associated Press
10 minutes ago
- Associated Press
New York governor seeks to build the state's first new nuclear power plant in decades
NEW YORK (AP) — New York's governor on Monday proposed the construction of the state's first new nuclear power plant in decades. Gov. Kathy Hochul directed the state's power authority to develop an advanced, 'zero-emission' facility in upstate New York that she hopes will help create a clean, reliable and affordable electric grid for the state. She said the state power authority will seek to develop 'at least' one new nuclear energy facility with a combined capacity of no less than one gigawatt of electricity. That would increase the state's total nuclear capacity to about 4.3 gigawatts. The Democrat said the state needs to secure its 'energy independence' if it wants to continue to attract large manufacturers that create good-paying jobs as it deactivates aging fossil fuel power plants. 'We're going to get it done,' Hochul said, speaking at the Niagara County Power Project in Lewiston. 'This historic initiative will lay the foundation for the next generation of prosperity.' The governor said the state hasn't decided on a potential location, but that upstate communities appear receptive, given the potential for creating 1,600 construction jobs and 1,200 permanent jobs once the facility is operational. 'Everybody is raising their hand right now,' Hochul said. 'It's going to be hard to decide.' Among those likely in the running is the Nine Mile Point nuclear plant in Oswego. Hochul's administration has been supportive of Maryland power company Constellation's bid to build a new nuclear reactor at the two-reactor facility. American utilities have been broadly reluctant to launch new nuclear plants due to high cost overruns and delays on recent high-profile projects. Georgia Power Company completed the first two new nuclear reactors in the country in a generation last year. But Units 3 and 4 at Plant Vogtle in Waynesboro, Georgia, cost nearly $35 billion and were powered up some seven years later than initially hoped. Last month, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the nation's largest public power company, applied to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to develop what it bills as a next-generation nuclear power plant at its Clinch River site in Oak Ridge. The federally owned utility provides electricity to seven states and operates three traditional, large nuclear power plants, providing about 40% of the Tennessee Valley's power. New York currently has three active nuclear plants, all located upstate along Lake Ontario and owned by Constellation. The Nine Mile Point, Robert Emmett Ginna and James A. FitzPatrick plants provide about 3.3 gigawatts of power, or roughly 20% of the state's electricity, according to Hochul's office. The last nuclear power plant built in the state was Unit 2 at Nine Mile Point in 1989. At its peak, nuclear power provided about 5.4 gigawatts, or roughly one-third of the state's electrical supply, according to the advocacy group Nuclear New York. The New York Power Authority previously operated two nuclear plants, including the Indian Point Power Plant, which shut down in 2021. That facility was located along the Hudson River some 25 miles (40 kilometers) north of New York City in Buchanan. The other facility, once operated by the state, was the FitzPatrick plant, which the power authority sold in 2000 and is now run by Constellation. ___ Follow Philip Marcelo on X at
Fox News
10 minutes ago
- Fox News
US strike damage to Iran's Natanz, Isfahan nuclear facilities captured in satellite images
Fresh satellite images have captured the damage caused by American B-2 stealth bombers in airstrikes targeting Iran's Isfahan and Natanz nuclear facilities. Photos taken by Planet Labs PBC show that multiple buildings were hit at both sites as a result of Operation Midnight Hammer. "At the Isfahan nuclear site ... buildings were hit, with the U.S. confirming their use of cruise missiles," International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Rafael Grossi said Monday. "Affected buildings include some related to the uranium conversion process. Also at this site, entrances to tunnels used for the storage of enriched material appear to have been hit. "At the Natanz enrichment site, the Fuel Enrichment Plant was hit, with the U.S. confirming that it used ground-penetrating munitions," he added. The U.S. launched a surprise strike using B-2 stealth bombers on Iran's Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan nuclear facilities on Saturday. "All three sites sustained extremely severe damage and destruction," Joint Chiefs Chairman Air Force Gen. Dan Caine said during a briefing at the Pentagon on Sunday morning. He added that the full extent of the battle damage to the facilities would take time to assess. Fordow, Iran's underground nuclear enrichment site, was pictured in satellite images showing from a bird's-eye view that the strike had obliterated some structures at the site. Fordow is built into the side of a mountain near the city of Qom, about 60 miles southwest of Tehran, while Natanz and Isfahan are above ground.
