Trump's bombings present major constitutional and legal questions. But it's up to Congress to force the issue

President Donald Trump's order to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities presents a new test of the Constitution and the extent of presidential powers to conduct war despite a lack of congressional approval.
The administration is relying on the president's authority under Article II of the Constitution, two senior administration officials told CNN, which says he has power to direct US military forces in engagements necessary to advance American national interests abroad. The White House counsel's office and the Justice Department were both involved in the legal analysis for the strikes. The administration relied, in part, on memos about war powers written by the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel under previous administrations of both parties.
'The president is clearly well within his Article II powers here,' one former senior US official told CNN. 'End of story.'
But that's not a view held by many legal experts or universally endorsed by Democratic and Republican lawmakers, who point to the Constitution's unambiguous statement that only Congress can declare war, the absence of a law akin to the Iraq War-era Authorization for Use of Military Force and — critically — a lack of an imminent threat to the United States.
In 1973, responding to the disastrous war in Vietnam, Congress overrode President Richard Nixon's veto to pass an important piece of legislation, the War Powers Resolution, that sought to rein in presidents regarding the use of military force.
'This is a large enough scale action that I think it's likely that it should be considered a war, and not merely a small, severely limited strike. Therefore, it requires congressional authorization,' said Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University and a scholar at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank.
'The War Powers Act requires advance consultation with Congress, 'whenever possible,' before entering US troops into hostilities,' Somin added. 'Here, I think it pretty obviously was possible, and it also pretty obviously wasn't done.'
The Supreme Court has been generous in approving Trump's expansive use of power, most notably its immunity ruling last year. That view has also contributed to the analysis, a senior White House official said.
'This isn't some technical rulemaking,' said Chris Anders, senior counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union. 'It literally is one of the enumerated powers' of the Constitution.
In the Federalist Papers, James Madison argued for an exception that's been hotly discussed since — that the president can use force if needed to 'repel a sudden attack on the United States.'
'If applied to Iran,' Anders said, it wouldn't meet that test. 'The use of bombing runs against facilities that have been standing there for years, perhaps decades, and were not about to be part of a sudden attack on the United States.'
A senior Justice Department official said if this conflict continues for an extended period, the administration may have to go to Congress for approval, but maintained that 'bombing three nuclear sites' does not rise to the level of needing congressional approval. The official also noted the Trump administration has the support of senior House and Senate leaders.
Democratic and Republican presidents have sidestepped Congress for strikes or military action for decades.
Over the past 40 years, the Article II powers have been used for President George H.W. Bush's use of force against Panama to overthrow dictator Manuel Noriega, President Barack Obama's use of air strikes in Libya and Trump's actions in his first term against Syria and Iran.
'The commander in chief can take actions to protect American interests around the world,' John Bolton, a former Trump national security adviser, told CNN.
'We've seen Iran sponsor terrorism in Lebanon in 1983, we've seen it help arm militias in Iraq that have killed Americans with RPGs made in Iran,' Bolton said. 'They've been threatening our forces in the region for years.'
Presidents have relied on a collection of legal experts from a variety of agencies to review their actions. Lawyers from the White House used the group, which included top national security legal experts from the Defense and State departments, the CIA, and the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel and National Security Division, to offer advice to the president before making a major national security decision.
The Trump White House has relied less on those experts than previous administrations, current and former US officials say. His Justice Department has previously broadly embraced the idea of wide presidential power.
'While the United States is not the world's policeman, as its power has grown, the breadth of its regional interests has expanded and threats to national interests posed by foreign disorder have increased,' the Office of Legal Counsel wrote in 2018 regarding air strikes against Syria.
'He's basically repeating the abuses of a number of previous administrations, most notably Obama, with the 2011 Libya war,' Somin said. 'But the bottom line is that this is a kind of abuse that's not unprecedented, albeit that doesn't make it right.'
Enforcing anything against Trump may be impossible through the legal system, as courts have been skeptical of who has the right to sue him and whether such debates should be left for the political branches to address.
The full House or Senate could in theory challenge Trump in court, as the then-Democratic-led House did during his first term regarding the border wall. But while a top federal appeals court backed the lawsuit based on a dispute over appropriations, it was later vacated as moot.
'This is the basic question of constitutional authority. If they were to bring a lawsuit, the courts would not intervene,' Bolton said. 'This is a fight between the two branches.'
Bipartisan concerns, however, won't move the needle on their own without help from leadership, which is unlikely based on Saturday's comments from House Speaker Mike Johnson.
'The President fully respects the Article I power of Congress, and tonight's necessary, limited, and targeted strike follows the history and tradition of similar military actions under presidents of both parties,' Johnson said in a social media post.
Republican Rep. Thomas Massie was taken aback.
'There was no imminent threat to the United States, which was what would authorize that. And I think that's peculiar to hear that from the speaker of the House,' the Kentucky congressman said on CBS' 'Face the Nation.' 'Look, Congress was on vacation last week when all this was happening. We haven't been briefed. They should have called us all back.'
Massie and Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna are seeking to reassert Congress' authority over military action with a co-sponsored war powers resolution. Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine said on 'Fox News Sunday' that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is pushing for a vote 'as soon as possible' on a resolution so 'all members of the Senate have to declare whether or not the US should be at war with Iran.'
US actions in Iraq and Afghanistan in the 2000s were 'at least' debated in Congress at the time with requests from then-President George W. Bush, Massie noted.
'It should have been declarations of war, but at least they did an Authorization of Use of Military Force,' Massie said. 'We haven't had that. This has been turned upside down.'
Some lawmakers and legal experts are looking at the second Iraq War as precedent for congressional action — and also a warning to review the intelligence.
'We are in yellowcake uranium-land,' a former national security official said, referring to botched intelligence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. 'Congress should be asking questions about what intelligence and what legal findings they did before taking this escalatory action.'
Democratic and Republican administrations have repeatedly stretched the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force, which authorized the Iraq War, as legal authority for military action in locations outside of Iraq. An earlier AUMF that authorized action against al Qaeda and associated groups also has been used beyond what was conceived in the post-9/11 era.
'The problem is that, historically, the only meaningful check on presidential abuses of the war powers has been pushback from Congress,' said Stephen Vladeck, CNN legal analyst and professor at Georgetown University Law Center. 'But that was when Congress took its constitutional and institutional responsibilities seriously.'
The ACLU's Anders says there's still time for Congress to act on a bipartisan basis, suggesting public hearings to air the Trump administration's military and legal justifications. Congress could also look at restricting funds for such actions without its buy-in.
It's also a chance for a true national debate.
'One advantage that comes to the executive branch when it goes to Congress and asks for authorization that there's a clear examination of what the United States is getting into, so there's much more of a national buy-in,' Anders said.
'That is part of the genius of the way the Constitution was set up.'

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Associated Press

14 minutes ago

• Associated Press

The Strait of Hormuz is a vital route for oil. Closing it could backfire on Iran

The war between Israel and Iran has raised concerns that Iran could retaliate by trying to close the Strait of Hormuz, the world's most important oil chokepoint due to the large volumes of crude that pass through it every day. The U.S. military's strike on three sites in Iran over the weekend has raised questions about how its military might respond. The Strait of Hormuz is between Oman and Iran, which boasts a fleet of fast-attack boats and thousands of naval mines as well as missiles that it could use to make the strait impassable, at least for a time. Iran's main naval base at Bandar Abbas is on the north coast of the strait. It could also fire missiles from its long Persian Gulf shore, as its allies, Yemen's Houthi rebels, have done in the Red Sea. About 20 million barrels of oil per day, or around 20% of the world's oil consumption, passed through the strait in 2024. Most of that oil goes to Asia. Here is a look at the waterway and its impact on the global economy: An energy highway in a volatile region The strait connects the Persian Gulf with the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea. It's only 33 kilometers (21 miles) wide at its narrowest point, but deep enough and wide enough to handle the world's largest crude oil tankers. Oil that passes through the strait comes from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, and Bahrain, while major supplies of liquefied natural gas come from Qatar. At its narrowest point, the sea lanes for tankers lie in Omani waters, and before and after that cross into Iranian territory. While some global oil chokepoints can be circumvented by taking longer routes that simply add costs, that's not an option for most of the oil moving through the strait. That's because the pipelines that could be used to carry the oil on land, such as Saudi Arabia's East-West pipeline, they don't have nearly enough capacity. 'Most volumes that transit the strait have no alternative means of exiting the region,' according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Closing the Strait of Hormuz would send oil prices massively higher — at least at first If Iran blocked the strait, oil prices could shoot as high as $120-$130 per, at least temporarily, said Homayoun Falakshahi, head of crude oil analyst at Kpler, in an online webinar Sunday. That would deal an inflationary shock to the global economy — if it lasted. Analysts think it wouldn't. Asia would be directly impacted because 84% of the oil moving through the strait is headed for Asia; top destinations are China, India, Japan and South Korea. China gets 47% of its seaborne oil from the Gulf. China, however, has an oil inventory of 1.1 billion barrels, or 2 1/2 months of supply. U.S. oil customers would feel the impact of the higher prices but would not lose much supply. The U.S. imported only about 7% of its oil from Persian Gulf countries through the strait in 2024, according to the USEIA. That was the lowest level in nearly 40 years. Iran has good reasons not to block the strait Closing the strait would cut off Iran's own oil exports. While Iran does have a new terminal under construction at Jask, just outside the strait, the new facility has loaded oil only once and isn't in a position to replace the strait, according to Kpler analysts. Closure would hit China, Iran's largest trading partner and only remaining oil customer, and harm its oil-exporting Arab neighbors, who are at least officially supporting it in its war with Israel. And it would mean blocking Oman's territorial waters, offending a country that has served as a mediator between the U.S. and Iran. The US would likely intervene to reopen the strait Any price spike would probably not last. One big reason: Analysts expect that the U.S. Navy would intervene to keep the strait open. In the 1980s, U.S. warships escorted Kuwaiti oil tankers through the strait to protect them against Iranian attacks during the Iran-Iraq war. A price spike 'wouldn't last very long' and the strait would likely be reopened 'very fast,' said Kpler's Falakshahi. U.S. use of force to reopen the strait would likely be supported by Europe and 'even unofficially by China,' he said. 'Iran's navy would probably get destroyed in a matter of hours or days.'

Business Insider

16 minutes ago

• Business Insider

How Russia's overheating war economy could get a boost if the Iran conflict sends oil prices even higher

Oil prices spiked in the wake of the US entry into the Israel-Iran conflict, a development that could give a much-needed boost to Russia's war-weary economy. Brent crude, the international benchmark, traded around $76 on Monday, a day after the US bombed nuclear sites in Iran. That's up 14% from its price on June 12, the day Israel first targeted Iran's military leaders and nuclear program. Brent prices have climbed 26% from their low in early May. West Texas Intermediate crude traded around $74 a barrel, up 9% from the day of Israel's first attack. WTI prices are up 30% from their low last month. The price of Urals oil, Moscow's flagship crude blend, also rose to around $63 a barrel on June 13, up 8% from its price on May 1, according to data from Argus Media cited by Bloomberg. A report from The Institute for the Study of War flagged the positive knock-on effects on Russia's economy, with oil being Moscow's top export — dnd the revenue that the Kremlin brings in from its energy trade is a key lifeline for its war effort in Ukraine. Russia put its economy on a war footing after the full-scale invasion, with President Vladimir Putin making moves to boost the output of the country's defense-industrial base. Production of key weaponry, like highly destructive glide bombs, drones, and missiles, has gone up since the start of the war. Russia has also increased contract bonuses and soldier pay to expand its invasion force upwards of 600,000 troops. "Continued rising oil prices following Israeli strikes against Iran may increase Russian revenue from oil sales and improve Russia's ability to sustain its war effort, but only if the price of oil remains high and if Russian oil does not come under additional international sanctions," the thnk tank said in a report last week, before the US entered the conflict over the weekend. Armed conflict between Israel and Iran — which the US joined on Saturday — also jeopardizes the Strait of Hormuz, a highly important passage for oil shipments in the Middle East. Russia is less reliant on this key transit route. The country has pivoted to selling its oil to Asian customers after getting hit with sanctions, and has rerouted more of its oil through the Suez Canal and the Strait of Malacca, according to the Energy Information Administration. "As long as the Straight remains at risk, political appetite for additional sanctions on Russian oil will remain low," The Royal United Services Institute, an independent British research institution, wrote in a note. The jump in oil prices comes at a pivotal time for Russia's economy, which has been bearing the cost of its war against Ukraine for over three years. In May, the nation said it would pull out another $5.5 billion from its liquid reserves to balance the budget deficit, which tripled in 2025. Russia's oil and gas revenue also dropped 35% year-over-year that month. According to the nation's Finance Ministry, the liquid assets in Russia's National Wealth Fund stood at 2.8 trillion roubles, or around $35.7 billion, in May. Calculations by Bloomberg show that's down 68% since the start of the Ukraine War. Meanwhile, the Trump administration's monthslong efforts to bring Russia and Ukraine to the negotiating table for peace talks appear to be going nowhere. Kyiv has denounced Putin's terms as effectively amounting to an unacceptable capitulation.

Fox News

17 minutes ago

• Fox News

Democrats need their ‘own Trump,' podcaster urges in NY Times

A recent opinion piece in The New York Times said that the key to the Democratic Party succeeding again is having their own version of President Donald Trump. "If the next Democratic nominee wants to build a majority coalition — one that doesn't rely on Republicans running poor-quality candidates to eke out presidential wins and that doesn't write off the Senate as a lost cause — the candidate should attack the Democratic Party itself and offer positions that outflank it from both the right and the left," Galen Druke, host of the "GD Politics" podcast, wrote in a Monday guest essay in The New York Times. "It may seem like an audacious gambit, but a successful candidate has provided them a blueprint: Donald Trump," Druke added. Druke noted that the Democratic Party is "historically unpopular," citing a 2025 Pew Research Center's American Trends Panel and saying that "The Democratic Party's favorability rating is 22 percentage points underwater — 60 percent of respondents view it unfavorably, 38 favorably." He cautioned that Democrats should not look for their own Trump figure who would "violate democratic norms and destabilize American institutions, but rather the one for resetting how Americans view a party and its leaders." Secrets behind Trump's success, Druke said, included the president bucking his own party's stances from both sides of the spectrum. Druke also hinted at the trust Democrats need to rebuild within their base after they "stood by a deeply unpopular president despite clear signs that Democratic voters did not think he was suited to another term." Druke mentioned a recent CNN poll that showed the Democratic Party's favorability rating at a record low among Americans, with 52% to 48% of Democratic-learning voters saying the party is going in the wrong direction. The poll also showed the favorability rating for the Democratic Party at 29%, calling it a "record low" that goes back to 1992, and saying that it was a 20-point drop from January 2021. Druke also said that Democrats should take a page from former President Bill Clinton's playbook and be liberal in terms of healthcare policy, where he says the candidate should push for universal healthcare "far more progressive than the Affordable Care Act," but have more right-leaning policies when it comes to issues like government spending and crime. Democrats should treat social issues similarly, Druke said, adding that the party should "assert that the goal is for all people to be treated with dignity and that Democrats got carried away with ideas that ultimately didn't further that goal." "To be truly successful, the next Democratic nominee will transform how Americans view the Democratic Party as a whole, leading the way to winning voters not currently viewed as 'gettable' in states that have been written off," Druke wrote.