Since President Donald Trump ordered the U.S. military to attack three of Iran’s nuclear sites, congressional Democrats have glommed on to one talking point — the president has violated the Constitution by taking the country to war.
Trump’s Iran attack is “unauthorized & unconstitutional,” said the No. 2 Democrat in the House, Rep. Katherine Clark. On the Senate side, Maryland’s Chris van Hollen argued Trump’s actions “are a clear violation of our Constitution — ignoring the requirement that only the Congress has the authority to declare war.”
New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez went further, posting Saturday evening that “Trump has impulsively risked launching a war that may ensnare us for generations .. and it is absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment.”
Democrats have a point, but these arguments would be far more potent if Democratic presidents hadn’t repeatedly acted the same way. For decades now, presidents of both parties have been unilaterally taking the country to war.
Since the War Powers Resolution was passed, however, no U.S. president has recognized its validity.
In February 2024, for instance, President Joe Biden ordered the U.S. military to hit Houthi rebels in Yemen who were attacking international shipping in the Red Sea. At the time, many Democrats did complain about Biden’s usurping of congressional authority, from liberal House members such as California Rep. Ro Khanna and Washington Rep. Pramila Jayapal to Senate Democrats, including Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy and Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine.
However, these complaints didn’t amount to much. Congress failed to pass an Authorization for the Use of Military Force supporting the attacks, in part because Democrats were fearful of embarrassing Biden in the midst of a re-election campaign. When Trump took office in January, he ramped up U.S. military actions, again without any legislative input from Congress.
At the heart of this dispute lies a fundamental and unresolved constitutional debate — which branch of government is responsible for initiating military action?
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution says “The Congress shall have Power…To declare War.” In 1973, Congress cited that section in passing the War Powers Resolution (WPR), which was intended to rein in the president’s authority to wage war. The WPR allows U.S. presidents to initiate military action without congressional approval, but also requires them to report to Congress within 48 hours and terminate the action within 90 days, unless congressional authorization is obtained.
Since the WPR was passed, however, no U.S. president has recognized its validity. Instead, they’ve argued that Article II of the Constitution grants them legal permission to use the military without approval from Congress.
Democrats need to be consistent with their argument — across all branches of the federal government.
Again, this is a bipartisan phenomenon. Indeed, few presidents more blatantly disregarded congressional prerogatives on the use of force than a Democrat — Barack Obama. In 2011, when he ordered the military to attack Libyan government forces, he not only didn’t get authorization from Congress, but he also absurdly claimed that the reporting requirement of the congressional War Powers Resolution didn’t apply, because the U.S. was not engaged in active “hostilities.” He made this laughable claim even though U.S. forces were bombing targets, firing missiles into the country and even coordinating with forward air controllers on the ground. Even Obama’s own office of legal counsel dissented from the president’s view.
Later, Obama would expand the mission in Libya from preventing a humanitarian catastrophe to actively working to overthrow the government of Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi, but he still never obtained congressional authorization.
Yet, as a candidate for president in 2007 — while Obama was still a senator — he claimed, “The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”
That Obama took one side of this issue as a member of Congress and another as president is hardly surprising — just as it’s unsurprising that presidents routinely ignore Congress when it comes to employing the use of force. Since the end of World War II — and more frequently since the end of the Cold War — U.S. presidents have regularly sent American troops into harm’s way without congressional authorization.
In recent years, presidents have regularly invoked the post-9/11 Authorization for Use of Military Force to justify military strikes from the Middle East to the Horn of Africa. The 2001 AUMF has, in the legal machinations of the executive branch, become akin to grandma’s proverbial nightgown: It covers everything.
In fact, it would hardly be a shock if Trump justifies the Iran attack by invoking it — if he even bothers to abide by the WPR’s reporting requirements. Repeated congressional efforts to repeal the 2001 AUMF and re-establish congressional oversight in matters of war have failed.
So it’s not as if congressional Democrats are wrong that Trump is acting in ways that expand executive power and ignore congressional input. Those arguments, however, are akin to demands to shut the barn doors after the horses have escaped.
There are plenty of grounds for criticism of the U.S. strikes on Iran. For example, Trump’s public warnings about a potential attack may have spurred Iranian officials to hide their supply of enriched uranium. Moreover, with the president musing about regime change in Tehran, there is always the potential for “mission creep.”
But if Democrats are serious about re-establishing the legislature’s role in taking the country to war, they need to be consistent with their argument — across all branches of the federal government.
For now, they should demand that Trump come to Congress and seek authorization not just for the fact that already happened but also any future operations. They might even get a few Republicans on board with such a plan. But railing against the constitutionality of his moves — and raising the specter of impeachment — is an argument that almost certainly will fall on deaf ears.
