In brief
As President Trump faces criticism over recent airstrikes in Iran, the legality of his actions has prompted questions and contrasting views among lawmakers and constitutional experts.
In the wake of President Donald Trump's airstrikes on various nuclear sites in Iran over the weekend, a wave of skepticism has arisen regarding his legal authority to carry out such military actions without congressional approval. Notably, questions have been raised not only by Democrats but also by some members of Trump's own Republican Party. Congressman Thomas Massie criticized the strikes on social media, asserting that they were "not Constitutional." Similarly, Congressman Warren Davidson shared doubts about the constitutional justification for the actions.Despite the criticisms, Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson defended Trump’s decision, emphasizing that the president believed the "imminent danger outweighed the time it would take for Congress to act." He also pointed to a historical precedent of similar military actions taken by past presidents from both parties. To clarify these disputes, BBC Verify consulted various legal experts, who weigh in on the constitutional implications of Trump's actions.Two key articles of the US Constitution are relevant here. Article I grants Congress the exclusive power “to declare war,” while Article II establishes the president as the “Commander in Chief of the Army.” Sources within the White House contend that this Commander-in-Chief authority under Article II justifies the strikes on Iran, with constitutional experts suggesting that the president can use military force under certain circumstances. These typically involve responding to "actual or anticipated attacks" or to protect vital national interests, such as preventing nuclear proliferation.Legal scholars, including Claire Finkelstein from the University of Pennsylvania Law School, argue that Trump had some authority to act in this situation. She stated, "The short answer is yes, he did have the authority here," noting that historical precedent supports presidents taking isolated military actions without waiting for Congress approval. Meanwhile, Jessica Levinson, a constitutional law expert, indicates there are limits on the president's ability to authorize air strikes, emphasizing the ambiguity in defining when an action transitions into wartime.However, not all experts agree with the justification for Trump's strikes. Andrew Rudalevige of Bowdoin College mentioned that the absence of an immediate attack to repel suggests a lack of authority for the recent military engagement. Historically, Congress has rarely exercised its constitutional duty to declare war, with the last official declaration occurring in 1942 after the Pearl Harbor attack.The practice of presidents launching military strikes without Congress has increasingly become common. John Bellinger, who worked as a legal adviser under President George W. Bush, noted that Congress has generally accepted this dynamic. Constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley also emphasized that many past presidents have invoked such authority frequently.Looking to history, recent administrations have acted similarly. President Obama conducted airstrikes in Libya without seeking Congress's approval, invoking Article II. Trump's prior military decision to eliminate Iranian General Qasem Soleimani also occurred without congressional input, along with several actions taken by President Biden, including strikes in Yemen and Syria.In response to the delicate balance of power between the presidency and Congress, critics cite the War Powers Resolution passed in 1973, which seeks to constrain presidential military action without legislative consultation. While the law permits limited emergency action, it emphasizes the requirement for the president to inform Congress prior to deploying military forces. Concerns arose following Trump's recent strikes, with Mr. Bellinger remarking on the apparent lack of substantial consultation with Congress prior to the operation.Reports indicate that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer was notified shortly before the strikes without substantial detail, whereas White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt described efforts made to inform congressional leaders as a bipartisan courtesy. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth reassured that Congress was informed after the military action, asserting compliance with the notification conditions outlined in the War Powers Act.
