Trump’s Iran strike triggers legal storm: Is the US now at war?

Donald Trump

US President Donald Trump’s surprise decision to bomb three Iranian nuclear facilities without seeking congressional approval has ignited a fierce constitutional and legal debate in Washington, with critics accusing him of bypassing the US Constitution and pushing the nation into a new war without public or legislative consent, the New York Times reported.

While the White House insists the attack was a limited, preemptive strike aimed at containing Iran’s nuclear ambitions, many lawmakers and legal scholars argue that Trump overstepped his authority and may have violated both US and international law. “His actions are a clear violation of our Constitution,” said Senator Chris Van Hollen, reflecting a growing chorus of concern.

Constitution vs. Commander in Chief powers

At the heart of the dispute is the balance of power between Congress and the presidency. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the sole authority to declare war. Article II, however, designates the president as commander in chief of the armed forces. Over decades, presidents have invoked this latter clause to justify unilateral military actions—but rarely have they done so in operations as provocative as bombing a sovereign nation’s nuclear facilities.

Congress attempted to clarify the limits with the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which requires presidents to consult lawmakers before sending troops into hostilities. But presidents often skirt its provisions or interpret them narrowly. Trump’s defenders, including US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Vice President JD Vance, argue he acted within his Article II powers to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction.

Trump suggests wider ambitions

Despite the administration’s insistence on the limited nature of the strikes, Trump’s own online post Sunday suggested broader goals. “If the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn’t there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!” he wrote, raising concerns that regime change may be part of the agenda—an aim far beyond what constitutional war powers typically allow without congressional backing.

This ambiguity has rattled Democrats and some Republicans. “Would we think it was war if Iran bombed a US nuclear facility? Of course we would,” said Senator Tim Kaine, who is pushing a resolution requiring Trump to seek congressional approval for any further action. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez went further, calling for Trump’s impeachment.

Legal experts say US is now at war

Many legal scholars are unequivocal: The US is now engaged in an armed conflict with Iran. “This is, in my view, illegal under both international law and US domestic law,” said Oona Hathaway of Yale Law School. Ryan Goodman, a former US Defence Department lawyer, argued that the administration’s rationale—an imminent threat—doesn’t meet legal thresholds since intelligence suggests Iran had not yet decided to build a nuclear weapon.

International law may also have been breached. Iran’s foreign minister called the strike a “grave violation” of the United Nations charter, which forbids one member from violating the sovereignty of another.

A history of war without declarations

Congress hasn’t issued a formal declaration of war since World War II. Yet US residents have routinely engaged in military conflicts without one—from Truman in Korea to Reagan in Libya, Clinton in Kosovo, and Obama in Libya and Syria. But in most cases, presidents have at least attempted to secure congressional authorization or operated under existing ones, like the post-9/11 authorizations for military force.

Trump has not sought such authorisation. In fact, the last time he took similar unilateral action was in 2020, when he ordered the killing of Iranian commander Qassim Suleimani. That episode nearly led to escalation, but eventually de-escalated. This time, however, the stakes appear much higher.

What Congress might do next

Though Republican leaders are backing the strike, Democrats are demanding oversight. Senator Kaine’s resolution is gaining traction, and Representative Thomas Massie, a libertarian-leaning Republican, has co-sponsored a parallel measure in the House.

“When two countries are bombing each other daily in a hot war, and a third country joins the bombing, that’s an act of war,” Massie wrote on Sunday. “To say otherwise is absurd.”

With Iran vowing to retaliate and tensions rising across the Gulf, Congress is now being forced into the debate it was initially denied—on whether the United States is at war, and whether the president has the legal right to make that decision alone.