SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
war powers
President Trump’s War on Iran Was Illegal and Unconstitutional—Congress Must Act Like It
Without a change, we will only continue to see presidents launch more and larger wars whenever and wherever they want and for whatever reason they choose.
Jun 26, 2025
As a fragile cease-fire takes hold between Israel, Iran, and the United States, many questions remain.
With Iran’s nuclear program unquestionably damaged but likely not fully destroyed, will the Iranian government now race toward a bomb? Having repeatedly broken recent cease-fires in Lebanon and Gaza, will Prime Minister Netanyahu honor this one? And after having twice taken direct military action against Iran, will President Donald Trump pursue the peace he claims to seek or once again choose war?
Meanwhile, Congress is currently debating whether and how to rein in Trump's war making power, with votes possible by the end of this week. There are two competing House bills, one bipartisan War Powers Resolution (WPR) sponsored by Reps. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Tom Massie (R-Ky.), and another by Reps. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.), Adam Smith (D-Wash.) and Jim Himes (D-Conn.). Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) introduced a Senate version, and that one is likely to get a vote by Friday.
If one person alone decides when the nation goes to war, wars will inevitably be about one person’s grievances, politics, and personal interests.
Time will tell whether these measures will pass or have any effect on current events, but on one point, there is absolute certainty. President Trump’s war on Iran was illegal and unconstitutional.
When it comes to who has the legal authority to declare war, the Constitution is unequivocal. The power to declare war rests solely with Congress. Once authorized, the president is the commander-in-chief, but the title does not confer on him the authority to decide where, when, or against whom the country goes to war, simply to oversee the prosecution of wars once they have been authorized.
For the Constitution’s framers, these weren’t hypothetical arguments, and we don’t have to guess at their reasoning or intention. They lived in an age when wars were fought at the whims of monarchs, sometimes for lofty imperial goals but sometimes for petty personal grievances. Indeed their own revolution had been based, in part, over frustration with the massive taxation required to pay down King George’s war debts. Instead, they sought to create a system in which the people who would pay the war’s costs in blood and treasure would decide whether or not their nation goes to war.
To accomplish this, they put this awesome power in the branch of government most accountable to the people, Congress. They did so with the hope and intention that this would make going to war difficult. If one person alone decides when the nation goes to war, wars will inevitably be about one person’s grievances, politics, and personal interests. By requiring Congress to publicly come together and navigate their myriad differences, the hope was that consensus would be difficult to obtain and wars would thus only be launched when there was a clear, overwhelming, and genuine national interest in doing so.
And of course, if members of Congress failed to exercise their authority responsibly, they’d regularly face elections where they could be replaced.
It was and remains an inspiring decision to impose a massive check on the most awesome power of the state. Unfortunately, as Donald Trump’s decision to wage war on Iran reminds us, this system of war powers is deeply broken and prone to abuse.
For starters, Iran posed no imminent threat to the United States that required military action in self-defense. To the extent any such claims are being made, they are based on a hypothetical future threat that must be prevented, namely an Iranian nuclear weapon. Such claims, of course, are a disturbing echo of the Iraq War, and even then they amount to arguments for preventative wars, not genuine preemption of an imminent threat. While this may seem like a small distinction, it is in fact a massive one.
In a letter to Congress justifying his war-making, President Trump makes no claim that the Iranian government was preparing an attack against the United States that he needed to preempt. Instead, he argues he was simply acting to “protect United States citizens at home and abroad” as well as stating repeatedly he is acting to “advance vital United States national interests.” Nowhere in this justification or his public remarks does the president make any claim that he is acting to defend against an imminent attack. Rather, he is simply claiming the unilateral right to both decide what is in the national interest and then to use military force in pursuit of that interest. Even if one agrees with his definition of interests and belief that military force will achieve them (something of which this author and others are deeply skeptical), it does not negate the need for constitutionally required authorization before resorting to war.
Similarly, the president’s claim in the letter that he was acting “in collective self-defense of our ally, Israel” is not an invocation of any actual legal authority to wage war. What Trump is attempting here is a sleight of hand in which the president’s right to use military force in self-defense of the United States is, without any legal authority, bestowed upon another country. Sadly, Trump may have learned this trick from Joe Biden who absurdly also made this claim to justify his use of military force in Somalia. To be clear, international law does allow for using military force in collective self-defense, but international law is not a replacement for the Constitution’s requirements of congressional authority to go to war. For the U.S. president to send the U.S. military into war, they ultimately need authority under U.S. law, and U.S. law simply does not provide existing authority for using military force in defense of Israel.
Of course, Trump isn’t the first president to try to unilaterally expand his authority to wage war. After the disastrous U.S. experience in Vietnam in which the mission grew from a small advisory effort in support of the French and then South Vietnamese forces to hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops fighting a deadly and ultimately unsuccessful major war, Congress attempted to get ahead of this growing problem and place limits on presidents in the 1973 War Powers Act. While perhaps no law in history has been more misunderstood or misinterpreted, WPR reaffirmed Congress’ sole constitutional right to declare war and created a framework to force presidents to remove the military from situations in which they may become engaged in wars Congress had not authorized.
The goal was simple: If it seemed like the U.S. might end up in war, the WPR required the president to remove forces to prevent that from happening. It also gave Congress fast-track procedures to consider legislation to force the president to comply. Indeed, in the coming days Congress may consider this with the various versions offered in both the House and Senate. This is exactly what happened in 2020 following Trump’s assassination of Iranian Gen. Qassam Soleimani, when Congress passed a resolution blocking further military action against Iran.
The fate of that resolution, however, also revealed the fundamental flaws in the current system. Trump ultimately vetoed that 2020 WPR legislation, and no doubt will do so again if Congress passes such legislation in the coming days. Thus, without a two-thirds supermajority, the system creates the conditions for presidential impunity when violating the Constitution’s separation of powers. This is, of course, exactly the opposite of what the framers intended. Their goal was that a majority of both houses of Congress would be required to go to war, not that a super majority of Congress would be required to prevent a president from going to war. The current system is thus an absurd perversion of the plain text and obvious intention of the Constitution.
Thankfully, some in Congress are trying to repair this dangerous situation. Bipartisan groups in both the House and Senate have recently introduced legislation to return the balance of power to Congress, and by extension to the American public, preventing the kind of unilateral war-making President Trump has repeatedly engaged in. This legislation likely faces long odds, but such reforms are deeply necessary in the long run. Without a change, we will only continue to see presidents launch more and larger wars whenever and wherever they want and for whatever reason they choose.
While the worst-case scenarios of a spiraling, escalating war may (or may not) have been avoided in this case, there is no guarantee that future presidential war-making will be so limited. Thankfully, the Constitution was drafted to prevent just such disasters. The only question left is if we’ll continue to allow presidents to violate it and act like kings.
Keep ReadingShow Less
‘We’re Being Lied To’: Veterans Protest Trump’s March to War With Iran
Veterans groups are urging members of Congress to invoke the War Powers Act to stop the president from launching an unauthorized attack on Iran.
Jun 19, 2025
As the Trump administration threatens imminent war with Iran, veterans of other destructive American wars are sounding the alarm.
As protests broke out across American cities on Wednesday, veterans in cities such as Portland, Oregon and San Antonio, Texas have joined a growing chorus of national anger about the prospect of another Middle Eastern war and called on Democratic leaders to act swiftly to invoke the War Powers Act.
The demonstrations have been organized by groups like About Face, which describes itself as "post-9/11 military members and veterans organizing to end a foreign policy of permanent war," and Veterans for Peace, "a global organization of military veterans" that seeks to "inform the public of the true causes of war and the enormous costs of wars."
On Wednesday evening, a group of protesters gathered outside the Portland office of Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).
One member of the group, who identified himself as Chris, described the parallels to the Iraq War over two decades ago.
"We saw 20 years ago, we were lied to about weapons of mass destruction with Iraq. And we're being lied to about weapons of mass destruction again with Iran," Chris told KATU-TV, an ABC affiliate.
He called on Congress to invoke the War Powers Act.
"Congress is the branch of government that's supposed to be declaring war, not the executive branch unilaterally," he said.
Following Israel's airstrikes against Iran last week, Wyden called for "diplomatic efforts to curb Iran's nuclear program," adding that Americans "do not want U.S. troops to be dragged into another war in the Middle East." However, he stopped short of co-signing Sen. Bernie Sanders' (I-Vt.) No War Against Iran Act, which would ban the use of federal funds to fight Iran without congressional authorization.
Oregon's other senator, Jeff Merkley, has called for Congress to invoke its war powers.
"It's long past time for Congress to reassert its constitutional role and prevent another disastrous conflict," Merkley said in a statement signing onto Sanders' bill.
About Face held another demonstration in San Antonio on Wednesday night alongside the Party for Socialism & Liberation, where the message was much the same.
"These criminal, genocidal lies killed over a million people, ruined countless lives, wrecked the legitimacy of the United States at home and abroad," the group's South Texas chapter wrote in an Instagram post comparing the current conflict to the war in Iraq.
In recent weeks, veterans' groups have been increasingly outspoken against the Trump administration. According to a June 3 poll from Data for Progress, 70 percent said they opposed his use of active-duty troops in this past weekend's military parade. More than 50 veterans were also arrested protesting the spectacle in Washington, D.C.
That same survey also found that just 10% of veterans believed the U.S. should send more troops to the Middle East, compared with 47% who said there should be fewer.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Reportedly Greenlights Plan for US Attack on Iran Without Congressional Approval
"Right now, the most effective thing you can do is flood Congress with calls to show that the American people don't want to go to war with Iran," said the advocacy group Demand Progress.
Jun 19, 2025
President Donald Trump is set to meet with top advisers in the White House Situation Room Thursday morning in the wake of reports that he has privately approved plans for a U.S. attack on Iran, a development that comes after days of pressure from Israeli officials and Republican war hawks in Congress to intervene in the war that Israel launched last week.
The Wall Street Journal reported late Wednesday that Trump told senior aides that he "approved of attack plans for Iran, but was holding off on giving the final order to see if Tehran will abandon its nuclear program."
"While Trump weighed his decision, the U.S. military continued to move forces to Europe and toward the Middle East, including tanker planes to refuel aircraft in flight, warships capable of shooting down ballistic missiles, an aircraft carrier battle group, and advanced F-22 air-to-air fighters, which flew Wednesday to a base in Britain," the Journal observed.
CBS News also reported that Trump "approved attack plans on Iran Tuesday night."
Trump's belligerent rhetoric and demand for "unconditional surrender" ahead of a possible U.S. attack have drawn sharp rebukes from Iranian officials, who said Wednesday that the country "does NOT negotiate under duress, shall NOT accept peace under duress, and certainly NOT with a has-been warmonger clinging to relevance."
The U.S. possesses 30,000-pound bunker-buster bombs within striking distance of Iran, and Israel claims it needs such explosives to hit Iran's heavily entrenched Fordow nuclear site.
"We are the only ones who have the capability to do it, but that doesn't mean I am going to do it," Trump told reporters Wednesday.
With a final decision from the president expected at any moment, anti-war members of Congress are moving with urgency to build support for legislative efforts to avert an unauthorized U.S. attack on Iran.
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), who is co-leading a House war powers resolution with Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), has called on Democrats to unify against U.S. involvement in Israel's war.
"This is now defining for the Democratic Party," Khanna told HuffPost on Wednesday. "Are we going to criticize the offensive weapons for Netanyahu and the blank check? Are we going to stand up with clarity against the strikes on Iran? Are we going to actually be the party of peace, or are we going to be just another party of war?"
On @chrislhayes, I called on @SenSchumer to support @timkaine, @SenSanders, and @RepThomasMassie and my resolution opposing a war in Iran. This is a defining moment for our party where too many blundered in supporting the Iraq war.
Now we need to be clear — no war in Iran. pic.twitter.com/SDxm3wXhEt
— Ro Khanna (@RoKhanna) June 19, 2025
Just 37 members of Congress, according to one tally, have backed anti-war resolutions currently before the House and Senate, even as new polling shows that a majority of the American public opposes U.S. military action in Iran.
"Right now, the most effective thing you can do is flood Congress with calls to show that the American people don't want to go to war with Iran," the advocacy group Demand Progress wrote Wednesday, urging Americans to call 1-833-STOP-WAR to connect with their representatives and push them to support war powers resolutions.
The two top Democrats in Congress—Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.)—have been mostly quiet this week about the Trump administration's march to war, and Schumer has declined to back legislation introduced by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) that would bar the president from using federal funds for an unauthorized attack on Iran.
But Schumer was among the top Democratic senators who signed a joint statement Wednesday declaring that "we will not rubberstamp military intervention that puts the United States at risk."
"Intensifying military actions between Israel and Iran represent a dangerous escalation that risks igniting a broader regional war," reads the statement. "As President Trump reportedly considers expanding U.S. engagement in the war, we are deeply concerned about a lack of preparation, strategy, and clearly defined objectives, and the enormous risk to Americans and civilians in the region."
Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) unveiled a war powers resolution earlier this week in the Republican-controlled Senate, but he must wait 10 days before he can force a vote on the measure.
"The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war," Kaine wrote in a social media post on Wednesday. "That's why I filed a resolution to require a debate and vote in Congress before we send our nation's men and women in uniform into harm's way."
Senators are set to receive a classified briefing on Iran from the Trump administration next week—but the president could order a military strike before then.
Politico reported Wednesday that "Trump, who criticized his predecessor for allowing new wars to break out on his watch, is increasingly listening to a small group of Iran hawks who have been pushing to go tougher on Tehran."
"Trump has become more receptive to arguments by those advocating more military engagement, including Gen. Michael 'Erik' Kurilla, who leads Central Command, as well as Republican senators Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Tom Cotton of Arkansas," the outlet noted.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular