Trump’s recent military strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities have sparked controversy over the increasing trend of US presidents bypassing Congress when using military force.
The operation, one of the most significant decisions of Trump’s presidency, was ordered without prior congressional approval — raising constitutional questions and concerns about executive overreach.
Trump now has 48 hours to formally notify Congress of the legal basis for the action, as required by the 1973 War Powers Resolution.
The strikes, aimed at crippling Iran’s nuclear capabilities, have already triggered strong reactions on the global stage, while U.S. lawmakers appear divided over how to respond.
“This is yet another chapter in the decades-long expansion of presidential war powers,” said John Bellinger, a senior fellow for international and national security law at the Council on Foreign Relations.
“Presidents are increasingly using military force without congressional authorization — and Congress, largely, has allowed it.”
Constitutional and Legal Tensions
The U.S. Constitution grants Congress the sole authority to declare war. However, it hasn’t done so since World War II. In practice, presidents have relied on broad Authorizations for Use of Military Force (AUMFs) or cited their Article II powers as Commander-in-Chief to justify unilateral actions.
Trump’s administration is expected to cite Article II in its upcoming report to Congress. Similar justifications have been used by past presidents — including Joe Biden, who launched strikes in Iraq and Syria in 2021 against Iranian-backed militias without congressional consent.
Experts argue that while the War Powers Resolution requires the president to seek congressional approval within 60 days of initiating hostilities, Congress rarely enforces these provisions.
“Congress tends not to push back — either out of political alignment or reluctance to limit the president’s options in national security matters,” said Curtis Bradley, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School.
Historical Precedents
Trump’s move mirrors several past instances where presidents acted without Congress. In 2011, President Barack Obama ordered military action in Libya, citing humanitarian concerns, while President George W. Bush sought congressional approval before the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
In contrast, Trump did not seek authorization for missile strikes on Syria in 2017, a move he defended as necessary to deter chemical weapons use.
But this latest strike on Iran, analysts say, marks an escalation in risk and consequence — especially given the sensitive nature of targeting nuclear infrastructure.
“To strike a country like Iran without warning or broader support goes further than many previous administrations,” Bellinger noted.
Legal experts agree that the courts are unlikely to intervene. Judges have historically deferred to the executive and legislative branches on matters of war and foreign policy, considering them political questions outside judicial scope.
“The judiciary isn’t equipped to police this,” Bradley said. “Even if the action violates the Constitution or international law, courts usually step aside.”
From the international perspective, the U.N. Charter only permits military action in cases of self-defense or with Security Council approval. Critics argue the U.S. strikes likely violate that framework, but enforcement remains elusive.
“The cost is more political than legal — damage to America’s reputation and credibility,” said Bellinger.