Trump’s Iran strike revives old questions about presidential war powers

Satellite image shows a close up of a crater over the underground facility of Natanz Enrichment Facility, after it was hit by US airstrikes. (Courtesy: Reuters)

US President Donald Trump’s decision to bomb three Iranian nuclear facilities without seeking approval from Congress has reignited a long-running constitutional debate: Does the president have the authority to unilaterally initiate war?

While critics — including prominent Democratic lawmakers and some Republicans — have accused Trump of violating the Constitution by launching a major military strike without US congressional authorization, the reality is murky. Though the US Constitution gives US Congress the power to declare war, modern presidents have frequently ordered limited military action on their own authority, often without political or legal consequence, the New York Times reported.

What does the Constitution actually say?

The US Constitution draws a line between war-making and war-fighting. Congress is granted the power to “declare war,” while the president, as commander in chief, directs military operations once a war is underway. The intent, most scholars agree, was to prevent a single person from dragging the country into conflict — a reaction against British monarchical power.

Yet in practice, especially since World War II, that balance has tilted heavily toward the executive branch. Presidents have routinely ordered airstrikes, drone attacks, and other military operations without going to Congress first, citing national interest or limited scope. Courts have largely refused to intervene, and lawmakers have rarely enforced consequences.

Why this time may be different

Trump’s strike on Iranian nuclear sites was not in response to an imminent attack, and he did not cite any congressional or UN mandate. While Trump and his officials insist the strike was necessary to neutralize threats to US troops and allies, the move has fuelled concerns that the president has bypassed both domestic and international legal frameworks.

Senator Tim Kaine, a longtime advocate for curbing presidential war powers, called the move “unconstitutional,” and Representative Thomas Massie, a Republican, echoed that sentiment. Trump responded by threatening political retaliation, underscoring his belief in a strong executive mandate.

Legal experts are divided. Some say that the strike was clearly “war” in the constitutional sense — especially given its potential for escalation — and thus required congressional approval. Others argue that under the executive branch’s own interpretation, which hinges on limited scope and duration, the strike could fall within presidential authority.

The limits of legal checks

Congress tried to constrain presidential military power with the 1973 War Powers Resolution, passed in the aftermath of Vietnam. It requires presidents to notify Congress of military action and withdraw forces within 60 days absent authorization. But every president since has ignored parts of it, claiming the law infringes on executive powers.

Even now, lawmakers like Kaine, Massie, and Representative Ro Khanna have introduced resolutions to halt hostilities with Iran. Yet even if these pass both chambers — a long shot — Trump could veto them. That underscores how little leverage Congress truly has unless it’s willing to pursue impeachment, which it has historically avoided over war powers disputes.

A dangerous precedent?

This latest strike underscores the disconnect between constitutional ideals and political reality. Trump’s actions may not differ much from past presidents’ in legal theory, but Iran is not Libya or Syria — it is a regional power, capable of retaliating against US troops and allies. That raises the stakes significantly.

Even some who generally support strong executive authority have warned that striking Iran without approval risks dragging the US into a larger, potentially uncontrollable war — a scenario the Constitution was explicitly designed to avoid.

“It’s a paradox,” said Harvard law professor Jack Goldsmith. “The Constitution was meant to limit unilateral war-making. But over time, the lack of enforceable constraints has left that power almost entirely in the president’s hands.”