Following President Donald Trump ordering airstrikes on three Iranian nuclear sites, members of Congress seemed to react very quickly and the issues concerning the attacks are not settled.
Among Republicans, some were for the airstrikes; others, however, mostly Democrats and some conservatives, have gravely questioned the decision of Trump not to seek Congressional approval prior to launching these attacks.
Republicans Show Support But With Caution
Senator Roger Wicker, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, praised the military operation but warned there were “very serious choices ahead.”
Senator Jim Risch, a Republican from Idaho who heads the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said, “This war is Israel’s war, not our war, but Israel is one of our strongest allies and is disarming Iran for the good of the world.” He added, “This is not the start of a forever war. There will not be American boots on the ground in Iran.”
Meanwhile, House Speaker Mike Johnson defended Trump’s decision, saying, “The president gave Iran’s leader every opportunity to make a deal, but Iran refused to commit to a nuclear disarmament agreement.”
“The president’s decisive action prevents the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism, which chants ‘Death to America,’ from obtaining the most lethal weapon on the planet,” Johnson said.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune also weighed in, simply stating, “I stand with President Trump.”
Conservatives and Democrats Question the Strike’s Legality
But others weren’t so sure Trump was within his rights to act alone.
Republican Representative Thomas Massie, a known critic of unchecked presidential power, posted, “This is not constitutional,” pointing to Congress’s exclusive authority to declare war.
On the other side of the aisle, Rep. Rashida Tlaib, a Democrat from Michigan, said:
“President Trump sending U.S. troops to bomb Iran without the consent of Congress is a blatant violation of our Constitution. The American people do not want another forever war.”
Tlaib added, “We have seen where decades of endless war in the Middle East get us—all based on the lie of ‘weapons of mass destruction.’”
Senator Tim Kaine from Virginia echoed that sentiment: “The U.S. public is overwhelmingly opposed to the U.S. waging war on Iran,” and called Trump’s decision “horrible judgment.”
Former congressman and military veteran Max Rose, now a senior adviser to VoteVets, didn’t hold back either, “Trump’s decision to launch direct strikes against Iran without congressional authorization is illegal.” He added, “This conflict is his and the Republicans who have abrogated all their responsibilities.”
Trump Says Strike Was Necessary to Support Israel
On 21 June, warplanes struck Iran at three key nuclear sites—Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan—joining Israel’s military campaign against Tehran. Both Trump and Netanyahu have claimed that Iran’s nuclear program posed an immediate threat.
But, although lauded by others, the operation clearly raised some key legal and constitutional questions, especially concerning whether Trump indeed had an Executive Authority to just strike without involving the Congress.
What Does the Constitution Actually Say?
According to John Bellinger, former legal adviser to the State Department, during his testimony before the Senate in 2017, the president does possess broad powers under Article II of the Constitution to use force.
Under these presidential powers, action taken in defense of the United States and its interests or, even, in support of allies can be set into motion without awaiting congressional action. However, a ceiling sits above those very powers.
Article I says that it is Congress that shall have power to declare war. Although this power is not meant to be applicable to each and every military action, situations arise wherein the absence of declaration is a problem—especially when the conflict is large-scale, long-lasting, and potentially fatal to U.S. troops.
Now, does the strike against Iran cross that threshold? Opinions are divided on this matter.
Legal Experts Say It Depends on the Scope of the War
The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has said that the president might need approval from Congress if the military action is likely to become a full-scale war or put American troops in danger over a long period of time.
In the case of Iran, the argument could go both ways. If the U.S. stops with one round of airstrikes, it might not qualify as “war.” But if things escalate and American troops or civilians are put at risk—then, yes, Congress should have a say.
International Law Also in Question
Many international law experts believe that attacking Iran without provocation or UN approval may violate the UN Charter, unless it’s done in self-defense or in response to an imminent threat.
Some in Trump’s camp may argue that the U.S. acted in collective self-defense of Israel, since Iran had already attacked Israeli cities. But others point out that even allies can’t always justify preemptive strikes.
It’s worth noting that in 1981, even President Reagan condemned Israel’s attack on Iraq’s Osirak reactor through a UN resolution. And in 2007, President George W. Bush declined Israel’s request to strike a Syrian nuclear facility, fearing regional chaos.
So while Iran poses a bigger threat today, it doesn’t automatically give the green light for attacks under international law.
Is This Expanding Presidential Power Too Much?
Critics say Trump’s decision is part of a growing trend: presidents acting first and dealing with Congress later—if at all.
Over the past two decades, Congress has largely stepped back and let presidents from both parties launch military operations with minimal oversight.
Legal experts warn this could damage the U.S. system of checks and balances. If presidents keep bypassing Congress, it could weaken the constitutional role of lawmakers in deciding whether or not to go to war.
“If Congress is to have any role in war powers, members of both parties should insist that the president consult fully with Congress before any use of military force against Iran,” Bellinger warned.
