War Powers Act vs. Article II: Is the US bombing of Iran constitutional? Could Trump be impeached?

On Saturday night, President Donald Trump took to Truth Social to announce that the United States had conducted what he described as a 'very successful attack' on three Iranian nuclear facilities—Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan. Donald Trump said US had conducted 'successful attack' on three Iranian nuclear facilities.(AP)
'We have completed our very successful attack on the three Nuclear sites in Iran, including Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan. All planes are now outside of Iran air space. A full payload of BOMBS was dropped on the primary site, Fordow. All planes are safely on their way home," Trump wrote.
"Congratulations to our great American Warriors. There is not another military in the World that could have done this. NOW IS THE TIME FOR PEACE! Thank you for your attention to this matter,' he added.
The announcement reignited a constitutional debate, with critics pointing to a June 16 post on X by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), who called such strikes unconstitutional.
'This is not our war. But if it were, Congress must decide such matters according to our Constitution. I'm introducing a bipartisan War Powers Resolution to prohibit our involvement,' he had tweeted.
Also Read: Iran Israel war news LIVE updates: US strikes on Iran a 'spectacular military success,' says Trump What Is the War Powers Act?
Enacted in 1973 over President Richard Nixon's veto, the War Powers Resolution (WPR) was designed to limit the president's ability to engage US forces in military conflicts without congressional approval. It followed public outrage over Nixon's secret bombing of Cambodia during the Vietnam War, which resulted in significant civilian casualties and sparked widespread protests.
The WPR requires the president to: Notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying U.S. forces into 'hostilities' or situations where hostilities are imminent. End military actions within 60 days (or 90 days in emergencies) unless Congress approves continued engagement through a declaration of war or specific authorization.
Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and Rep. Massie have argued that Trump's strikes on Iran violate the WPR, as they were launched without congressional approval. What does Article II say?
Trump's supporters, citing Article II of the Constitution, argue that as 'Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy,' the president has broad authority to direct military operations.
'The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment,' the article states.
However, this power is constrained by Article I, Section 8, which grants Congress the authority to 'declare war' and regulate the armed forces
Legal scholar John Yoo, speaking to Fox News Digital, defended Trump's actions. He argued that a limited airstrike does not constitute 'war' in the constitutional sense and thus doesn't require congressional approval.
'As a legal matter, the president doesn't need the permission of Congress to engage in hostilities abroad. But as a political matter, it's very important for the president to go to Congress and present the united front to our enemies,' he told Fox News Digital.
Also Read: US bombs Iran: 10 key developments after strikes on nuclear sites Can Trump be impeached?
Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution allows impeachment for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." If Congress determines that violating the WPR or bypassing its constitutional war powers constitutes a 'high crime,' impeachment could be pursued.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Time of India

15 minutes ago

• Time of India

'There is no red line' US hasn't crossed, says Iran's foreign minister; declares diplomacy dead after America strikes on nuclear sites

Israeli President Isaac Herzog on Sunday expressed gratitude to US President Donald Trump for carrying out military strikes on Iranian nuclear sites, calling it a "decisive moment" between the axis of terror and that of hope. Iran's foreign minister Abbas Araghchi declared on Sunday that the United States has crossed 'the most dangerous red line' by launching overnight strikes on key Iranian nuclear sites, warning that diplomacy is no longer on the table and that the US bears full responsibility for what comes next. 'There is no red line left that the US hasn't crossed,' Araghchi told reporters in Istanbul. 'The last and most dangerous one was what happened only last night when they crossed a very big red line by attacking nuclear facilities.' He added, 'The door to diplomacy should always be open, but this is not the case right now.' This marks the first official Iranian response since US President Donald Trump announced that American B-2 bombers, supported by submarine-launched Tomahawk missiles, had struck Iran's Fordo, Natanz, and Isfahan nuclear sites. Trump claimed the sites were 'completely and fully obliterated,' calling it a 'historic moment' and warning Tehran that 'there will either be peace or there will be tragedy for Iran.' The Atomic Energy Organization of Iran confirmed the sites had been hit but insisted that the program 'cannot be stopped.' The IAEA said there was no sign of radiation leakage but would continue to monitor the situation. Iran's foreign ministry accused Washington of 'betraying diplomacy' and launching 'a dangerous war.' by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 40세 넘고 PC만 있으면? 이 게임 완전 내 거임! Hero Wars 플레이하기 Undo It vowed to respond with 'full force.' 'The warmongering, lawless administration in Washington is solely and fully responsible for the dangerous consequences and far-reaching implications of its act of aggression,' Araghchi said. Shortly after the US strikes, Iran launched 40 missiles at Israel, injuring over 80 people and damaging several buildings. Israel retaliated with fresh strikes on military targets in western Iran. The Israeli military has reported being on high alert for a prolonged conflict. Meanwhile, global leaders have raised alarm. UN Secretary-General António Guterres called the situation 'a dangerous escalation,' warning of a growing risk of catastrophic regional war. Despite warnings from Tehran, Trump defended his decision as necessary to halt Iran's nuclear ambitions, which the US and Israel argue remain a threat even as Tehran denies pursuing a bomb. Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu praised Trump's action, calling it 'bold' and 'historic.'

First Post

18 minutes ago

• First Post

As US joins Israel's war against Iran, is Ayatollah's time coming to end?

As the United States has joined Israel's war against Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is facing an existential crisis to his regime. In a far cry from the goal of destroying Israel and exporting the Islamic Revolution globally, he now has no good options to even keep his regime afloat. read more 'We shall export our revolution to the whole world. Until the cry 'there is no God but Allah' resounds over the whole world, there will be struggle,' Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran, swore in 1970s. In 1979, Khomeini put Iran on the path to destroy Israel and export the Islamic Revolution to the world. In 2025, his successor, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has his back to the wall and is staring at the potential collapse of his regime. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD While Israel had already degraded the Iranian power to the extent that nearly all air defences had been taken out, the military brass had been wiped out, and many missile launchers and weapon storage sites had been destroyed, US airstrikes on Saturday struck a blow to Khamenei's ultimate leverage of the nuclear programme. The Islamic Republic is currently at its weakest point and Supreme Leader Khamenei does not have many options as the war is now not just with Israel but with the United States and the fear of the collapse of regime change is very real, says Alvite Ningthoujam, a scholar of West Asia at the School of International Studies (SIS), Symbiosis International University (SIU), Pune. For decades, Iran did not draw power just from its military and intelligence apparatus, which was second in the region only to that of Israel, but also from the 'Axis of Resistance' it sponsored — the bloc comprised groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, and Houthis. The bloc stands battered and is in no position to help Iran. For Israel, 'Operation Rising Lion' that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu launched last week was not a new war but merely the latest episode in the war that the Islamic Republic began in 1979, so the current state of the regime, whether it's the degradation of proxies or strikes on its nuclear sites, is the result of its policies going back to the foundation of the regime, says Daphne Richemond Barak, a professor of international relations at the Lauder School of Government, Diplomacy and Strategy at Israel's Reichman University. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Khamenei faces regime change fears as Trump & Netanyahu join hands In a far cry from 1989 when Khamenei took over as the Supreme Leader of Iran and assumed the responsibility of destroying Israel, exporting the Islamic Revolution globally, and weakening the West, his sole responsibility has now been reduced to ensuring the survival of the regime. Netanyahu, on the other hand, is hell-bent on toppling Ayatollah Khamenei's regime and it remains to be seen if President Trump will support that objective as well, says Ningthoujam, the Deputy Director at SIS, Pune. Regime change is, however, easier said than done. Unlike Iraq or Afghanistan, there is no indication that Israel or the United States are about to launch a ground offensive. Unlike Syria, there are no opposition forces whom they may support militarily and financially against the regime. 'Even as Supreme Leader Khamenei appears to be secure from immediate regime change, the threat is there and he is under unprecedented pressure, and it is under such pressure that he takes major actions. The future of the regime may rest on whether he now decides to fight to the end, develop a nuclear weapon, or make a deal to live to fight another day,' says Ningthoujam. ALSO READ: As Netanyahu dares Khamenei, here's timeline of Israel-Iran conflict STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The fate of Khamenei's regime may rest on how the external pressure affects internal faultlines in Iran. It is no secret that Iranians despise the conservative, dictatorial regime — as was seen in 2022-23 when millions took to the streets in the monthslong uprising after the regime's morality police murdered a young woman for purportedly not following the hijab law. However, the external pressure can work both ways. While many accounts suggest that Iranians in and out of the country are quietly cheering at the weakening of the regime, some suggest that there is a brewing rallying around the flag effect as many Iranians interpret the Israeli offensive as not one directed at the regime but at the country. The regime change in Iran may not be the same as Iraq or Afghanistan where an invading force overthrew the ruler or like Syria where armed groups opposed to the regime overthrew it, but could be much more subtle, suggests Ningthoujam. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'If the Supreme Leader is assassinated along with the remaining leaders of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), there would be a leadership vacuum. The rise of a new crop of leaders would amount to a regime change. Even if the Supreme Leader remains but the regime is weakened and public anger against extremists swells, the moderates may come to power and give the country a new direction. That would be as good as regime change,' says Ningthoujam. Khamenei has no good options With his back to the wall, Khamenei has no good options. Whether Khamenei makes a deal and surrenders the nuclear programme to ensure the regime's survival or puts up a fight, the chances are that he would emerge as a loser both internally and externally. If Khamenei gives up nuclear enrichment as the international community has demanded, he would give up his final leverage and risk meeting the same fate as Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi, who gave up the weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programme in 2003 in a deal with the United States and United Kingdom and was still ousted in Western military intervention in 2011. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD If Khamenei keeps his nuclear programme, he would risk plunging his country deeper into the conflict. Neither Netanyahu nor Trump would have any issue from bombarding Iran until it becomes a wasteland like the Gaza Strip. ALSO READ: Inside Netanyahu's campaign to destroy Iran's bunker nuclear sites Either way, Supreme Leader Khamenei would be at the risk of losing his legitimacy and that of the Islamic Republic and the Islamic Revolution, says Ningthoujam. For Israel, however, Khamenei's choice may not matter — at least for now. Even though Prime Minister Netanyahu set the destruction of Iranian nuclear capabilities and the collapse of the Iranian regime as principal objectives, the main idea behind the offensive was the degradation of the Iranian regime and that has been achieved, says Prof. Barak, the international relations scholar at Israel's Reichman University. Critics of the US and Israeli actions have said that strikes on the Iranian nuclear programme would leave Khamenei with no choice but to make a nuclear weapon to restore deterrence as conventional deterrence stands eroded. Barak does not agree. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Barak says, 'The attacks have degraded the Iranian ability to make nuclear weapons. Even if the knowledge continues to exist, the means no longer exist whether it is a strong regime at home or proxies abroad. There were four broad outcomes with Operation Rising Lion and at least three of them are about to be realised.' Barak lists the four outcomes expected from the Operation Rising Lion at the onset: the United States entering the war on Israel's sides and attacking Iran's underground nuclear sites as that capability did not exist with Israel; Israeli strikes in the absence of direct US involvement setting back the Iranian nuclear programme by many years, making its revival next to impossible; Israeli strikes and possible US participation pushing Iran into making a deal favourable to Israel; and the chaos inside Iran from the war leading to an uprising against the regime. While the first two potential outcomes have been achieved and the third may still be achieved as Trump has pitched the strikes as a way to bring Iran to the negotiating table. The fourth potential outcome depends on how the situation evolves. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'Until now, it was a proxy war. Now, Israel has gone for the head of the octopus — Iran is an octopus and not a snake. If you cut a tentacle, like Hezbollah or Hamas, it would regrow. Therefore, Israel has now struck the head of the octopus in Iran. The international community may be concerned about chaos at the fall of the regime in Iran, but Israel is not. Israel has been in an existential war with Iran since 1979,' says Barak.

Time of India

19 minutes ago

• Time of India

Browns turn gray: Entries, mountains at Fordow nuclear site damaged- satellite images show

Entries to the Fordow nuclear site in Iran and the mountains under which it is buried suffered significant damage following targeted US strikes on Sunday, according to the satellite images provided by Planet Labs PBC. A close comparison with earlier satellite imagery indicates that previously brown mountain slopes have turned gray, with altered contours, likely the result of powerful explosions, as per an analysis by the Associated Press. The visual evidence strongly points to the deployment of specialized American 'bunker buster' bombs, capable of penetrating fortified underground targets. Left- Before the attack; right- after the attack Light gray smoke lingering in the air further supports the conclusion that a high-impact military strike took place. Despite the clear signs of damage, Iranian authorities have yet to release an official assessment or acknowledge the extent of the impact on the Fordow facility. The Fordow site, deeply embedded within a mountain to shield it from attacks, appears to have sustained direct hits powerful enough to seal its entryways. Experts suggest that such sealing would render the facility inaccessible without extensive excavation, a task that could significantly hinder any activities within. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 5 Books Warren Buffett Wants You to Read In 2025 Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List Undo US claims Iran's nuclear sites 'fully obliterated' US President Donald Trump, in his address to the nation post strikes on Iran, claimed that the nuclear sites in the Islamic nation had been "completely and fully obliterated". The Atomic Energy Organization of Iran acknowledged that its facilities at Fordow, Isfahan, and Natanz were targeted in the attacks, but maintained that its nuclear program would continue uninterrupted. Both Iran and the UN nuclear watchdog reported no immediate indications of radioactive contamination at any of the three sites after the strikes. How US helped Israel target Iran's nuclear sites The US played a critical role in helping Israel target Iran's nuclear sites by providing advanced military capabilities that Israel alone did not possess. While Iran insists its nuclear program is peaceful and US intelligence has found no active pursuit of a bomb, both Trump and Israeli leaders believed Iran could rapidly develop a nuclear weapon, posing an urgent threat. Following a sustained Israeli air campaign that weakened Iran's air defenses and damaged some nuclear infrastructure, the US stepped in with direct military involvement. Key to this operation were American B-2 stealth bombers and the 30,000-pound 'bunker buster' bombs—munitions specifically designed to penetrate fortified underground facilities like those at Fordow and Natanz, which only the US is equipped to deploy. According to the States and Israeli officials, these unique capabilities provided the best chance of destroying Iran's deeply buried nuclear assets. Trump, reportedly influenced by Israeli officials and Republican lawmakers, concluded that the timing was ideal—Israel's preliminary strikes had "softened the ground," creating a rare window to significantly, and perhaps permanently, cripple Iran's nuclear ambitions.