Following President Donald Trump’s order for military strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites, congressional Democrats have overwhelmingly argued that his actions contravene the Constitution, which grants Congress the exclusive authority to declare war. House Democratic leader Rep. Katherine Clark characterized the strikes as “unauthorized & unconstitutional,” while Senator Chris Van Hollen emphasized that Trump’s actions reflect a blatant disregard for congressional authority.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez escalated the rhetoric by suggesting that Trump’s decision could lead to a prolonged conflict, which could have generational implications, calling it a basis for impeachment. However, these criticisms from Democrats might carry more weight if they had consistently denounced similar unilateral military actions taken by previous presidents.
Both Trump and Democratic President Joe Biden have exercised such powers, often bypassing Congress. For example, in early 2024, Biden ordered strikes against Houthi rebels in Yemen, drawing criticism from progressive Democrats. Yet, the outcry lacked substantial opposition as Congress refrained from passing an Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) to challenge Biden’s actions.
The broader constitutional debate at play hinges on the ambiguity regarding the responsibility for initiating military action. While Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution explicitly grants Congress the power to declare war, the War Powers Resolution of 1973 complicates this by allowing presidents to engage militarily without congressional approval under certain conditions. Despite this, no president has acknowledged the limitations outlined in the WPR since its enactment, instead relying on Article II of the Constitution, which they argue grants them the authority to act without congressional consent.
This pattern isn’t new. Former President Barack Obama, for instance, conducted military operations in Libya without congressional authorization, claiming that the potential humanitarian crisis did not necessitate it, despite significant military engagement. This precedent underscores the tendency of presidents, irrespective of party affiliation, to act unilaterally in military matters.
As the debate unfolds regarding Trump’s recent actions, critics stress the importance of restoring congressional oversight in matters of war. They argue that if Democrats genuinely wish to curtail the president’s expanding military powers, they should advocate for legislative authorization and utilize the opportunity to draw bipartisan support for a renewed commitment to the constitutional division of powers.
Despite the complex political landscape, there remains room for hope. A collective push from Congress on both sides of the aisle could lead to a reinvigoration of legislative authority over military engagement, ensuring that any future military operations reflect a consensus and uphold the constitutional framework intended to safeguard against unilateral executive action.