Did Trump Unlawfully Bypass Congress to Strike Iran?

One of the most prominent questions still stewing after President Donald Trump launched strikes on Iran early Saturday morning is: Were his actions legal without congressional approval?

The Debate: The US Constitution says that "no state shall, without the consent of Congress… engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger." And the War Powers Act of 1973 requires the president to "consult with Congress [within 48 hours] before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into a situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances." Secretary of State Marco Rubio reportedly briefed the "Gang of Eight" congressional leaders prior to the strikes on Iran; however, not all members of Congress were notified.

Unlawful: Trump "disregarded both domestic and international law for warfare," stated the New York Times Editorial Board (Left bias). "He started this war without explaining to the American people and the world why he was doing so. Nor has he involved Congress, which the Constitution grants the sole power to declare war." The writers asserted, "The Iranian regime, to be clear, deserves no sympathy," however, "Trump is not treating war as the grave matter that it is." They highlighted that Trump justified the strikes by pointing to the threat of Iranian nuclear powers but contradicted himself by previously claiming such powers were "obliterated" in June.

An analysis by the Christian Science Monitor (Center) concurred, "The Constitution gives Congress authority to declare war – a word Mr. Trump has used to refer to the strikes." It criticized, "Trump ran on a platform that included a pledge to end 'the failed policy of nation-building and regime change.' But he has now pursued regime change in both Venezuela and Iran." The article highlighted the lack of transparency in Trump's order and how he launched the strike "without explicit backing from Congress and without public opinion on his side." It balanced its coverage by adding, "In 2011, many Republican members criticized President Barack Obama's decision to conduct strikes in Libya without congressional permission."

Lawful: Jeffrey Blehar (Lean Right) similarly emphasized Trump's lack of transparency in an opinion piece for National Review (Right): "We are promised a 'short campaign,' but with no definition of what that is, or even what the mission properly is." He asserted – "regardless of whether Congress has the legal authority to do a thing about it" – "Congress is owed more than a last-minute briefing, however cheaply they currently treat their own powers and responsibilities. Normal citizens deserve to hear the president make his case for the war."

In another National Review opinion, Andrew C. McCarthy (Right), stated that congressional authorization "would be constitutionally appropriate and politically prudent. But it is probably not necessary." He argued, "The Democrats have good reason to question whether President Trump was being forthright and accurate in claiming that the Iranian threat was 'imminent.' But as a constitutional matter, the question [of] whether Trump's use of force was legal does not turn on whether the threat was, in fact, imminent."

Written by the AllSides staff (of humans). Learn more. Support our mission. Suggest an improvement to this summary.