Iran Attack Raises Legal Questions

Experts Divided on Legality of Trump’s Military Action Against Iran

President Donald Trump’s decision to order joint military airstrikes with Israel against Iran on February 28, which resulted in the death of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has ignited a fierce debate about presidential war powers and constitutional authority.

The controversy centers on whether the President had legal authority to launch these strikes without congressional approval. Several Democratic lawmakers have strongly condemned the action as unconstitutional, while the administration defends its legal footing.

“President Trump promised no more forever wars. Instead, he has illegally dragged us into another one without congressional authorization and no long term strategy,” said Sen. Ruben Gallego of Arizona in a statement shortly after the attack.

Similar sentiments were echoed by Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia, who labeled it an “illegal war” during an appearance on “Fox News Sunday.” Kaine emphasized, “The Constitution says no declaration of war without Congress. The president can act to imminently defend the United States against imminent attack…but if you’re going to initiate war, you need Congress.”

The administration, however, maintains it followed proper protocols. Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters that congressional leadership was notified in accordance with current requirements. “We notified the Gang of Eight. We notified congressional leadership,” Rubio said, referring to the eight senior members of Congress who receive classified intelligence briefings.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed that Rubio “called all members of the gang of eight to provide congressional notification, and he was able to reach and brief seven of the eight members” prior to the strikes.

The constitutional question at the heart of this debate dates back to the founding of the nation. Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution explicitly grants Congress the power “To declare War.” However, presidential practice over decades has frequently diverged from this original constitutional framework.

Yale Law School professor Oona Hathaway was unequivocal in her assessment: “The strikes on Iran are blatantly illegal,” she wrote on social media. In a previous New York Times essay, Hathaway explained, “It has become almost quaint to observe that the Constitution gives Congress, not the president, the power to declare war…he is obligated to seek authorization from Congress before he initiates a war.”

According to Hathaway, the only exception is when the United States has been attacked and the president must act quickly to protect the country. She also noted that U.S. commitments under the U.N. Charter require Security Council authorization for such military actions.

Other legal scholars, however, present a more nuanced view. Peter Shane, a constitutional law scholar at New York University School of Law, points out the difficulty in giving definitive answers due to longstanding interpretive disagreements.

Shane explained that while the original constitutional understanding likely required congressional authorization, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel has long held that “history has ratified unilateral presidential deployments of military force” when they serve important national interests and don’t involve prolonged military engagement.

Kermit Roosevelt, a constitutional expert at the University of Pennsylvania, agrees that practice has diverged from original intent. “Presidents have done things that count as acts of war under international law without congressional authorization…and no one has stopped them,” he noted.

The 1973 War Powers Resolution, passed in the aftermath of the Vietnam War, requires presidents to notify Congress within 48 hours of introducing U.S. forces into hostilities and terminate military action within 60-90 days unless Congress provides authorization.

On March 2, Trump informed Congress that the strikes were undertaken to protect U.S. forces, ensure maritime commerce through the Strait of Hormuz, and provide collective defense for regional allies, including Israel. He cited his “constitutional authority as Commander in Chief.”

Harvard Law School professor Jack Goldsmith argues that the legal debate itself has become largely symbolic. “There are no effective legal limitations within the executive branch. And courts have never gotten involved in articulating constraints in this context,” he wrote. Goldsmith suggests the focus should instead be on Congress’s political responsibility to question and constrain presidential uses of force.

Congress may soon vote on war powers resolutions requiring congressional approval before further military action in Iran. However, similar resolutions failed to pass after previous military operations in Iran and Venezuela earlier this year.

With Trump telling the New York Times that U.S.-Israel attacks on Iran could continue for “four to five weeks,” the constitutional debate over war powers remains as urgent and unresolved as ever.