President Donald Trump’s decision to authorize overnight strikes against Iran revived sweeping debate about a decades-old law dealing with congressional involvement in military operations.
Some in Congress have raised concerns that Trump should have received permission from Congress before signing off on the joint U.S.-Israel strikes against Iran, citing the 1973 War Powers Act. Those lawmakers range from Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) to Reps. Thomas Massie (R-KY) and Ro Khanna (D-CA).
Others have argued that Trump held clear authority to authorize the strikes, citing Article II of the Constitution and historical precedent.
THE US AND ISRAEL ATTACKED IRAN: WHAT WE KNOW
The War Powers Act affirms Article I in the Constitution, which states “Congress shall have power… to declare war.” The 1973 law is designed to limit presidents’ ability to authorize extensive military operations. It aims to prevent the president from starting or continuing long military actions abroad without Congress’s approval, except in cases of a national emergency requiring an immediate response.
In circumstances such as Saturday’s operation, the ambiguity between what constitutes a war, or “hostilities,” often stirs debate between War Powers Act hardliners and those who favor softer interpretations.
The War Powers Act holds a consultation clause that states the chief executive must talk to Congress before sending troops into “hostilities” in “every possible instance.” There is a reporting requirement that states that if no war is declared or no specific congressional authorization exists, the president must notify Congress in writing within 48 hours of “hostilities,” and provide details on the operation. There is also a time limit that stipulates that the U.S. cannot engage in military operations longer than 60 days unless Congress declares war or passes specific authorization.
SEAN DURNS: THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC HAD ITS CHANCE
The War Powers Act was passed in the context of the Vietnam War, and has stirred debate in the years since over whether it undermines authorities provided to the president under Article II of the Constitution. The Reagan, Clinton, and both Bush administrations, as well as the Obama administration, have sidelined the law in various instances, often invoking their Article II constitutional authority as commander in chief, or arguing that the operations they unilaterally authorized were limited in scope and were not “hostilities.”
In the wake of Saturday’s strikes on Iran, there has been bipartisan support for passing a War Powers Act resolution that seeks to restrict Trump’s authority to deploy military forces. Khanna, Massie, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), Schumer, and others have been clear that they view the strikes as a violation of the War Powers Act. They are calling for a swift congressional vote on the resolution to affirm checks on the president’s power.
Others have defended the president’s actions. Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY) said that under Article II of the Constitution, Trump holds the authority to carry out strikes.
“Under Article II and as Commander in Chief, the President has the authority to act. The notion that this strike is illegal or that the President needed Congress’ authority is wrong,” he said. “Furthermore, Biden and Obama conducted numerous strikes in numerous countries without Congress, and none of the people screaming now seemed to have any objections.”
While the Trump administration did not seek congressional signoff before the strikes, it briefed the leaders of the House and Senate and the respective intelligence committees earlier in the week that military action “may become necessary” to protect U.S. troops and citizens in Iran.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio alerted a key group of congressional leaders known as the “Gang of Eight” before the operation. He was able to reach seven of the eight members. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-LA) said he looks “forward to administration officials briefing all senators about these military operations.”
TIANA LOWE DOESCHER: TRUMP’S ATTACK ON IRAN IS AN ATTACK ON CHINA’S ECONOMIC SUPERIORITY
Roger Wicker (R-MI), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has praised the president’s “decisive” action, arguing that “this is a pivotal and necessary operation to protect Americans and American interests.”
“Without the use of military force against them, Iran’s ayatollahs would simply continue to grow their ability to threaten Americans and our interests, working in concert with the Chinese Communist Party, the Russian dictator Putin, North Korea, and other terrorist allies,” Wicker said.
