Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution of the United States grants Congress the sole power “To declare War”. 

Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution recognizes the President as “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.”

The language is clear, restrained, and balanced, because it is meant to create a clear, restrained, and balanced civic reality, in which the whims of a ruler would never plunge the republic into an ill-conceived, devastatingly costly expedition that might only serve to create more perils than it resolves.

As with other duties of the Executive, the President’s formal responsibility is limited to faithfully executing what Congress has approved.

Congress has not authorized the use of military force against Iran. Congress has not authorized even a targeted strike with so-called “bunker buster” bombs against underground facilities where Iran is said to be enriching uranium.

Congress has not had hearings—even classified ones, that we know of—to determine whether such strikes might send clouds of radioactive materials over the region and around the planet. Nor has Congress had any hearings to determine whether the sites struck in Iran pose an immediate, time-sensitive danger to the security of the United States.

The administration has not even attempted to present evidence of such a threat to Congress. Clearly, were there a grave and imminent threat, the People’s representatives in both the House and Senate would want to uphold their sworn duty to protect the republic. Why the Trump administration has not even attempted to provide anything like that consensus-building evidence, to secure the Constitutionally required authorization, we will not speculate here.

Since Congress has never given Pres. Trump Constitutional authority to launch such strikes, they are a violation of the Constitution, and unlawful. 

This fact is not a comment on whether Iran’s nuclear program is lawful or acceptable. It is unlawful for Iran to produce weapons-grade uranium or to build nuclear weapons. The theocratic authoritarian regime controlling Iran has sponsored terrorist operations in numerous countries for decades, including the horrific mass murder of October 7, 2023, which set off the worst war in the region in decades.

The corruption and malice of that regime does not, however, override the Constitution of the United States.

The Constitution exists to set up a governing system that is free of the haphazard and self-serving corruption and malice of authoritarian regimes. If the President has evidence that only by military action can the nation’s safety be secured, then that evidence must be presented in good faith to the Congress, so the People can authorize such action, according to what is right for the nation and the rule of law.

Given the United States of America was founded on the rejection of arbitrary rule by an imperial monarch—and tracing some of the logic of the founding back to the Magna Carta, in which British aristocrats rejected King John’s right to tax them at will to wage wars of choice—it is clear the Framers of the Constitution wanted to prevent such abuses that could endanger the republic and the rights of the People.

One serious problem we the People have is that our Congress has not exercised its Article I power to declare war since World War II. Over the eight decades since that horrific war ended, Presidents have committed the United States to a nearly endless campaign of overseas war fighting, sometimes without alerting the public, at other times using conscription to compel Americans to serve and die in undeclared wars.

As a self-governing society of free people, we must reckon with this dark reality—that so much armed conflict, with all the suffering and loss of life it has brought, may have been conducted outside the law, by rogue executives. This is why Congress established the War Powers Act, requiring congressional approval for the use of military force, while allowing emergency action, under certain conditions and contingent on compliance with the law.

In the case of the post-9/11 war in Afghanistan, Congress did, under the War Powers Act, provide Pres. Bush with an authorization for the use of military force, on the grounds that the war was defensive in nature. Another authorization was issued for action against Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq, on the premise that he had stockpiled weapons of mass destruction. That claim turned out to be false.

Afterwards, Americans were warned by critics of the administration about “mission creep”—an apparent misuse of the authorization to undertake other military actions not in line with the argument the administration had made to secure Congressional approval.

While he initially supported the Iraq war, Donald Trump became one of the most vehement critics of the Bush administration, ostensibly over the issue of mission creep and cost to Americans. That position has been central to his political career. In fact, four of the five elections since the height of the Iraq war (2008, 2012, 2016, 2024) have resulted in critics of that war becoming President. President Trump’s supporters surely expect him to abide by his promise that he would not take the United States into a unilateral or unnecessary war.

There are currently resolutions being considered in both houses of Congress, with bipartisan co-sponsorship in the House, that would block further action by President Trump against Iran, unless Congress specifically issues an authorization as was done for the war in Afghanistan. Under the language of Article I, Article II, and the War Powers Act, the President needs this approval before he can wage war against Iran.