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.'
Presidents testing limits
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.
The U.N.
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.'

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

The Independent

33 minutes ago

• The Independent

‘Morning Joe' stands up for Trump on Iran strikes and says even Hillary Clinton would have bombed nuke sites

MSNBC star Joe Scarborough came to the defense of his one-time pal Donald Trump on Monday morning, insisting that the president's decision to drop over a dozen bunker-busting bombs on Iran's fortified nuclear facilities would have been made by his predecessors — and Trump's 2016 opponent Hillary Clinton. On Saturday, the United States joined Israel's military campaign against Iran that is aimed at destroying the Middle Eastern adversary's nuclear program, with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claiming Tehran was just weeks away from developing a nuclear bomb — an assertion he's made for decades now. 'Monumental Damage was done to all Nuclear sites in Iran, as shown by satellite images. Obliteration is an accurate term!' Trump boasted on Truth Social about 'Operation Midnight Hammer,' though experts say satellite imagery reveals the nation's nuclear program is 'far from destroyed.' Meanwhile, after Vice President JD Vance and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth both insisted on Sunday that America wasn't looking for a protracted war that would include toppling Iran's government, the president sang a different tune just hours later. 'It's not politically correct to use the term, 'Regime Change,' but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!' Trump posted on his social media platform on Sunday afternoon. While a new poll shows Americans overwhelmingly disapprove of Trump's decision to bomb Iran and worry that it will make the US less safe, Scarborough – an early and vocal cheerleader of the Iraq War – said on Monday's broadcast of Morning Joe that any other president would have handled the situation the same as Trump. 'The president had no good options,' Scarborough declared. 'What would Monday look like if he hadn't have moved, if Iran wasn't already at 60 percent, and an ability to create nuclear weapons in a short matter of time, right? … I'm not championing either side of this.' Turning to Washington Post columnist David Ignatius, the Morning Joe host asserted that the president had enough buy-in from the international community to take military action against Iran, adding that other Republican and Democratic commanders-in-chief would have felt obliged to do the same thing. 'I ask you, how difficult would it have been for any president to not take that shot if they knew that Iran was even being attacked by the United Nations?' Scarborough wondered. 'I find it hard to believe that Bush 41, Bush 43, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, you know, go down the list, any president wouldn't have felt compelled to take that strike.' Agreeing with the host, Ignatius said that Trump 'inherited' the war plans with Iran from his predecessors, adding that this would have been what they considered if they found 'diplomacy wasn't working.' At the same time, he said Trump's 'choices were debased at the moment' and the president 'had to make a decision.'Elsewhere in the show, Scarborough also invoked former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger to observe that the president had only 'difficult choices' in front of him when it came to Iran. 'Henry Kissinger famously said that when you're sitting in the White House and trying to make a decision on foreign policy, the possibility of war, you're never handed a good decision and a bad decision. You're handed two very difficult choices,' he stated. 'And the president made that choice.' While Scarborough and his wife/co-host Mika Brzezinski have been loud critics of the president for years now, that wasn't always the case. Considering him a longtime personal friend, the couple provided Trump a hefty boost in the nascent days of his 2016 presidential campaign, giving the then-reality TV star free rein of their program while promoting his candidacy. Though there would be a bitter split between the Morning Joe hosts and Trump prior to his winning the 2016 election, which would include the president peddling wild conspiracy theories about Scarborough killing an intern, the icy relationship may have begun to thaw in recent months. The couple traveled to Mar-a-Lago for an off-the-record huddle with Trump after his electoral victory in November, prompting viewers to briefly boycott Morning Joe over the perceived 'kissing the ring' trip. As for Scarborough's own foreign policy views, the former GOP congressman was a fervent supporter of invading Iraq over the George W. Bush administration's claims that the country was developing weapons of mass destruction. Though he has tried over the years to selectively criticize other cheerleaders of that war without pointing that finger at himself, Scarborough spent the early months of the Iraq War raging at news outlets, media figures and politicians he felt were too negative and critical about the US-led invasion. 'These leftist stooges for anti-American causes are always given a free pass,' he ranted in April 2003 to then-MSNBC colleague Michael Savage. 'Isn't it time to make them stand up and be counted for their views?!'

The Guardian

40 minutes ago

• The Guardian

Zelenskyy calls Russia, Iran and North Korea a ‘coalition of murderers'

Volodymyr Zelenskyy has described Russia, Iran and North Korea as a 'coalition of murderers' during a visit to London in which he held talks with Keir Starmer on defence cooperation and how to put further pressure on Moscow. Ukraine's president arrived in the UK on Monday, hours after the Kremlin launched another big air raid on Kyiv. It involved 352 drones – half of them were Iranian-designed Shaheds - and North Korean ballistic missiles in what Zelenskyy called 'a completely cynical strike'. At least 10 people were killed and five civilian apartment blocks badly damaged. 'A large number of drones and missiles were shot down by our air defenders — but not all,' Zelenskyy posted on social media. 'Everyone in countries neighbouring Russia, Iran, and North Korea should be thinking carefully about whether they could protect lives if this coalition of murderers persists and continues spreading their terror.' Zelenskyy has supported Donald Trump's missile strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities and has accused Tehran of complicity in Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, now in its fourth year. Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons arsenal in the 1990s in exchange for US, British and Russian security guarantees. These failed, however, to prevent Vladimir Putin's 2022 attack. Zelenskyy's latest trip to the UK was to discuss how to compel Russia to stop its war, Ukrainian officials said. His previous visit in March followed a disastrous meeting in the Oval Office in which Trump accused him of 'gambling with world war three' and the US vice-president, JD Vance, berated him for supposed ingratitude. Monday's discussions encompassed sanctions and the Trump administration, which has so far refused to punish Russia and has practically ended US weapons deliveries to Kyiv. Ukraine has been attempting to keep Washington onside diplomatically, despite its apparent pivot to Moscow. 'We will be negotiating new and powerful steps to increase pressure on Russia for this war and to put an end to the strikes,' Zelenskyy said of his London trip. As well as talks with Starmer, he met King Charles at Windsor castle and visited Ukrainian soldiers receiving military training in the UK. Sign up to First Edition Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion Zelenskyy is likely to travel to this week's two-day Nato summit in The Hague and is scheduled to meet the alliance's secretary general, Mark Rutte. It is unclear if he will have a face-to-face meeting with Trump, who is expected to arrive on Tuesday and push for greater defence spending from Nato member states. Since Trump's return to the White House in January, Russia has dramatically stepped up its aerial attacks on Ukraine. It has refused Zelenskyy's offer of a 30-day ceasefire and continues to target civilians. Monday's strikes hit a residential area, hospitals and sports infrastructure. The most severe damage was in Shevchenkivskyi district, where a section of a five-storey apartment building collapsed. Kyiv's mayor, Vitali Klitschko, said six people had been killed in the district. Ten others, including a pregnant woman, were rescued from a nearby high-rise that also sustained heavy damage. Oleksii Pozychaniuk, 29, who lives in the building next to the one struck, said he heard the whistle of a rocket approaching and 'froze in terror' before feeling the impact. 'Windows blew out, glass was flying everywhere,' he told the Associated Press. 'We barely made it downstairs with my child. Everything here was on fire.'

BBC News

42 minutes ago

• BBC News

Could this be the most significant Nato since the Cold War?

As the world holds its breath to see what happens next after the US launched direct attacks on Iran's nuclear sites, US President Donald Trump is expected in the Netherlands on Tuesday for a Nato will be Trump's first Nato meeting since being re-elected. In the past, he's made angry comments about alliance members freeloading off US security guarantees. European allies are desperate to prove him wrong. They hope to persuade him not to pull troops or US capabilities out of the continent."Relations with Europe have been so strained since Trump returned to the White House - over trade tariffs and more - that a few weeks ago, we weren't even sure he'd turn up to this summit," one high level diplomat - who spoke on condition of anonymity - told me."With Russia and China watching for western weakness, that would have been a disaster."But Moscow and Beijing may yet be able to bring out the popcorn. Nato's secretary general Mark Rutte designed this summit around Trump. He aimed to flatter him by agreeing massive hikes in defence spending, to show that Europeans would now take more responsibility for their own also hoped that by keeping the meeting narrowly focused on money, he'd avoid any potential clashes or outbursts between Trump and his carefully-laid plan could be on Iran's next move, the US commander-in-chief may decide at the last minute to remain in the Situation Room in he does come to Europe, as expected, how will it be possible not to talk about the Middle East considering what's at stake? That would introduce the risk of a fallout between the US President and European allies, who advocated diplomacy over bombing when it came to Iran. Trump loves a win and he's very thin-skinned. He won't want to feel any disapproval at the Nato he'd been assured of a headline-grabbing victory at the summit, with European countries committing to spending a whopping 5% of GDP on defence - exactly as he demanded in his first weeks back in the White House."This summit is about credibility," is how the US ambassador to Nato, Matthew Whitaker, puts Spain claimed on Sunday that it had secured an opt-out from the new spending plan - something Rutte later allies in Europe that are struggling to find the extra cash are bristling bottom line is: Europe needs to keep big military and nuclear power US onside. That's how Rutte managed to corral reluctant leaders - bar Spain - into signing up to the new big spending push. It's a massive as the former US ambassador to Nato, Julianne Smith, told me - even then, there are absolutely no guarantees with Trump. It's unclear if the US would sign up to an end-of-summit declaration this week identifying Russia as the main threat to the Nato trust in the US as its ultimate protector has been shaken by Trump's seemingly softly-softly approach with Moscow, and by his heavy-handed pressure on Kyiv, as he's tried to end the war in on Friday night, you could almost hear European diplomats grinding their teeth, after Trump blithely justified the enormous 5% defence spending target he's demanded of allies, while exempting himself and the US from the commitment."I don't think we should, but I think they should," he said. "We've been supporting Nato so long… So I don't think we should, but I think that the Nato countries should, absolutely."Then again, Europe's leaders arguably should have been better prepared by now in terms of may be the bluntest and most unpredictable, but Trump is by no means the first US president to want to move military attention and investment from Europe to other priority areas, particularly the Indo-Pacific. President Obama was very clear about that back in 2011. The US has nuclear weapons stored in Italy, Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands. It has 100,000 battle-ready troops stationed across Europe, 20,000 of them in Eastern European Nato countries, sent there by President Biden after Russia's full-scale invasion of continent could make up a shortfall in troop numbers, especially with Germany and Poland planning to significantly build up their ground forces over the next few years. But Europe's dependency on the US goes deeper, says Malcolm Chalmers, deputy director-general of the Royal United Services has relied on Washington for intelligence gathering, surveillance, air force capabilities and command and control. The US has performed a pivotal leadership role in Nato, bringing its members and forces are exactly the capabilities that are scarce and needed by the US military in Asia, says Mr Chalmers. If removed from Europe, they'd take a very long time to long ago, many Nato countries in Europe avoided building up continental capabilities, such as extending France's nuclear umbrella to other allies, for fear the US might say: "Oh well, you no longer need us. We're off!"But now, Europe is being forced to shoulder more security responsibility, not only to try to persuade Washington to stay - but also in case the US president decides to withdraw from Europe to a greater or lesser extent. No one knows what Trump's intentions are. Europe's Nato leaders were hugely relieved recently, when his administration announced that US Air Force Lieutenant General Alexus Grynkewich would assume the traditionally US-occupied Nato position of Supreme Allied Commander, Europe. That implied commitment to the defence Washington is carrying out its own military spending and defence review. Announcements are expected in autumn. It's thought unlikely there'll be any new US funding for Ukraine. And very likely that the 20,000 extra troops in eastern Europe will be the first US forces to be pulled out of the this, Poland says it will attend this week's Nato summit in a confident mood. In stark contrast to Spain, Warsaw believes it's leading by example - spending more of its national income on defence (currently 4.7% of GDP) than any other Nato member, including the US. It aims, it says, to build the most powerful land army in the Cold War, Poland lived under the shadow of the Soviet Union. The country neighbours Ukraine. It's not hard to persuade Poles that defence is a top politicians in countries further away from Russia, the argument is more challenging. Spanish media has been full of speculation that disagreements over defence spending could topple the country's precarious coalition government. Trying to both placate Trump by agreeing to his defence spending demands, while also sweetening the pill for more cash-strapped European leaders, Nato is proposing to split the 5% target into two parts: 3.5% of annual national income on defence, with a further 1.5% of GDP to be spent on "defence-related" issues, like expanding cargo sea ports in the Netherlands, for example, or France investing in cyber has the added bonus of bringing Europe into line with US military spending of 3.4% of GDP - a huge psychological landmark, says Camille Grand, former Assistant Secretary General for Defence Investment at Nato and now defence expert at the European Council of Foreign however you play with the figures, we're talking about governments having to spend billions more on defence. The money has to come from new taxes - a method Estonia has been trying out - or more borrowing, which will be hugely expensive for countries like Italy that already have large amounts of government debt. Another option is a reduction in welfare spending - known as "guns or butter," or "tanks or pensions" its Strategic Defence Review, the UK recently stressed to the public the need for more military spending, but Mr Chalmers says neither Downing Street nor most other European governments have fully prepared their electorates for the trade-offs that huge new defence investments will timetable for reaching the 5% target is key. Nato allies have called for a 7-10 year window. Nato's Secretary General has suggested that could be too late. With Moscow's economy very much on a war footing, Russia will be able to attack a Nato country within five years, he says. Defending Europe isn't just about how much governments spend. As important is what they spend their money on.A big European weakness is that there are lots of duplicate and incompatible capabilities across the continent: reportedly 178 different types of weapon systems and 17 different makes of tanks in the EU alone, for example. Putting aside national defence contracts and pride, and pooling European resources in the name of efficiency, is yet another thorny debate that will likely be sidelined at this week's what definite outcomes can we expect?That very much depends on the man arriving in the Netherlands on Airforce ambassador to Nato says the meeting could be historic."A watershed moment" is how another high-level diplomat put it to me – and possibly "the most significant Nato summit since the Cold War": the moment Europe began to spend as much as the US on defence and to truly assume responsibility for its own security. BBC InDepth is the home on the website and app for the best analysis, with fresh perspectives that challenge assumptions and deep reporting on the biggest issues of the day. And we showcase thought-provoking content from across BBC Sounds and iPlayer too. You can send us your feedback on the InDepth section by clicking on the button below.