The recent military strikes ordered by President Donald Trump on several nuclear facilities in Iran have ignited a heated debate among lawmakers from both the Democratic and Republican parties regarding the legality of such actions. Prominent Republicans, including Congressman Thomas Massie and Congressman Warren Davidson, have openly questioned whether Trump’s decisions were constitutional, suggesting that the authority to enact military action rests firmly with Congress. Meanwhile, Republican Speaker of the House Mike Johnson staunchly defended the president, asserting that Trump acted on the basis of imminent danger, and highlighted the historical precedence of similar military actions undertaken by presidents of both political persuasions.
The crux of this legal dispute revolves around the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, primarily Articles I and II. Article I of the Constitution specifically grants Congress the power to “declare war,” while Article II designates the president as the “Commander in Chief of the Army.” This juxtaposition raises questions about the extent of presidential powers when it comes to military engagement without congressional approval.
Legal experts cited by BBC Verify have stated that Trump’s authority to order the strikes could be justified under Article II, which has historically been invoked to authorize military action under pressing circumstances, such as “actual or anticipated attacks” and to safeguard national interests. Some experts, like Professor Claire Finkelstein of the University of Pennsylvania Law School, affirm that Trump had the constitutional authority to order the strikes under these conditions.
In contrast, other scholars, such as Andrew Rudalevige of Bowdoin College, contend that without a direct attack to respond to, Trump’s legal basis for the strikes becomes tenuous. The lack of a clear definition as to what constitutes an act of war further complicates this issue, leading to gray areas in legal interpretations.
Looking into presidential precedents, there is a notable occurrence of chief executives employing military force without congressional approval. For instance, Barack Obama conducted military action in Libya and ordered the operation that led to the death of Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan, whereas Trump previously approved strikes on Iranian military leader Qasem Soleimani.
Legal opinions indicate that the practice of unilaterally engaged military actions has become increasingly common, as Congress has in many cases refrained from exercising its power to declare war. Historical perspectives, voiced by conservative constitutional expert Jonathan Turley, indicate that the expectation of such a declaration has become diluted over time, pointing to a trend where preceding administrations have similarly acted without immediate congressional sanction.
As the debate ensues, it remains to be seen how Trump’s decision to strike Iran will influence future discussions around presidential authority in military engagements and the relevant constitutional interpretations governing such actions.