Entertainment

As tensions escalate in the Middle East, President Donald Trump has indicated he is considering military strikes against Iran, a move that has prompted questions about the legal boundaries of presidential power. The potential for action comes after a sustained buildup of U.S. Military forces in the region, including the deployment of two aircraft carriers and the anticipated arrival of the USS Gerald R. Ford. This situation raises critical questions about the constitutional limits on the President’s authority to initiate military action without explicit congressional approval.

On Friday, when pressed by reporters, Trump stated, “I guess I can say I am considering that,” in response to whether he was weighing limited strikes against Iranian leadership to compel a deal regarding its nuclear program. This statement follows a Thursday deadline issued to Tehran, demanding a resolution to the nuclear dispute within 10 to 15 days or face “really bad things.” The possibility of military intervention has drawn criticism from both sides of the aisle, with some lawmakers calling for a congressional vote before any action is taken.

Constitutional Concerns: The Need for Congressional Approval

According to David Janovsky, Acting Director of The Constitution Project at the Project on Government Oversight, any strike ordered by President Trump would likely be legally unjustified without congressional authorization. “The short answer is no,” Janovsky told TIME. “There’s no indication that there’s any sort of circumstance that would give the President the unilateral authority to order military action.” He explained that the President’s authority as Commander in Chief is limited to true emergency circumstances, such as repelling an ongoing attack or responding to an imminent threat – conditions that do not currently exist.

Janovsky emphasized that a contemplated attack against a sovereign state constitutes an act of war, and the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the exclusive power to declare war, not the President. The administration would need to seek a vote and approval from Congress to legally authorize military action. This principle stems from the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution, designed to prevent unilateral executive action in matters of war.

Past Actions and Legal Precedents

The current situation echoes a similar action taken in June 2025, when the United States participated in an Israeli-led military operation that targeted three of Iran’s nuclear sites. Yet, Janovsky maintains that even those strikes were not legally justifiable. The administration at the time offered a brief explanation citing the President’s inherent authority and a notion of collective self-defense with Israel, but Janovsky argues that self-defense requires a more immediate threat than what existed at the time, and continues to exist now.

The legal implications of Congress passing a formal War Powers resolution restricting the President’s ability to strike Iran are significant. Janovsky believes such a resolution would not only change the legal calculus, potentially discouraging the executive branch from pursuing “creative lawyering” to justify military action, but as well influence the considerations of military lawyers reviewing any potential strike order. Politically, it would send a strong message of congressional disapproval, potentially limiting the administration’s support within its own party.

Congressional Response and Potential Resolutions

Several members of Congress have already signaled their intent to challenge any unilateral action by the President. Representatives Thomas Massie, a Republican, and Ro Khanna have announced plans to introduce a War Powers resolution to prohibit military action against Iran without congressional approval. Massie stated on X on February 18, “Congress must vote on war according to our Constitution. Rep. Ro Khanna and I will be forcing that vote to happen in the House as soon as possible. I will vote to position America first which means voting against more war in the Middle East.”

The muted reaction from Congress to the recent military buildup has been attributed to a long-term trend of congressional acquiescence to executive expansions of power. Janovsky noted that a similar effort to pass a War Powers resolution after the 2025 strikes was largely unsuccessful, as the strikes were perceived as a one-off event. However, he argues that the current situation underscores the urgent need for Congress to act decisively.

The USS Gerald R. Ford is currently en route to the Mediterranean Sea, having activated its tracking system on Wednesday, revealing its position approximately 175 miles off the west coast of Morocco, according to CBS News. This deployment, alongside the USS Abraham Lincoln already in the region, significantly increases American airpower in a volatile area.

As the deadline set by President Trump approaches, the legal and political landscape surrounding potential military action against Iran remains complex and fraught with constitutional questions. The coming days will likely see increased debate and scrutiny of the President’s authority, as well as continued efforts by some members of Congress to assert their constitutional role in matters of war and peace.

The situation remains fluid, and the next steps will depend on both Iran’s response to the President’s demands and the actions taken by Congress. Continued monitoring of diplomatic efforts and congressional deliberations will be crucial in understanding the evolving dynamics of this potentially explosive situation.

What are your thoughts on the President’s authority to initiate military action without congressional approval? Share your perspective in the comments below.