The Laws That Bind Us: War, the Constitution, and the Limits of Power
What the Constitution requires and why respecting war powers protects our democracy and the principles of justice and human dignity.
Engage for Democracy | June 25, 2025
🔄 Note (Updated June 26, 2025): This edition has been updated to provide deeper historical and constitutional context. A new section has been added analyzing how the U.S. Supreme Court has contributed to the erosion of congressional war powers, drawing on legal scholarship by Professor Steve Vladeck. In addition, Appendix A has been expanded to include a broader set of historical examples across both political parties, illustrating how U.S. presidents have repeatedly used military force without direct congressional authorization. These updates aim to give readers a clearer understanding of the institutional dynamics that have shaped executive war-making authority over time.
📝 Editor’s Note
On June 21-22, 2025, the United States launched a coordinated bombing campaign against three Iranian nuclear sites. The action was taken without a formal declaration of war or prior authorization from Congress.
Under the U.S. Constitution, the power to initiate war rests with Congress, not the President. Yet throughout history, presidents from both parties have at times acted unilaterally, citing urgency, national security, or executive discretion. Each such moment raises a fundamental constitutional question: What are the limits of presidential power in matters of war?
This edition of Engage For Democracy examines these airstrikes in that broader historical and legal context, documenting what occurred, what the Constitution and international law require, and what is at stake when those requirements are bypassed.
📍 What Happened
On June 22, 2025, the United States conducted coordinated airstrikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities, Fordo, Natanz, and Isfahan, without seeking or receiving prior congressional authorization. [1][2] The operation marked a significant escalation in U.S.–Iran tensions and renewed legal and constitutional debate over the limits of presidential war powers.
According to publicly reported statements from U.S. defense officials, the strike involved approximately 125 military aircraft, including seven B-2 Spirit stealth bombers launched from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri. These bombers undertook an 18-hour mission requiring multiple midair refuelings. Officials also confirmed the use of decoy aircraft over the Pacific to divert attention from the true strike path, and that fighter jets entered Iranian airspace ahead of the bombers to identify and neutralize potential threats. [1][2][5]
Between 6:40 p.m. and 7:05 p.m. Eastern Time, the B-2 bombers dropped approximately 75 precision-guided munitions on the Fordo and Natanz sites. These included 14 GBU-57 “Massive Ordnance Penetrators,” also known as “bunker busters,” designed to destroy hardened underground targets. [1][5] Around the same time, more than two dozen Tomahawk cruise missiles were launched from a U.S. Navy submarine targeting Iran’s Isfahan facility. [1][2] According to defense officials, this was the first documented combat use of the GBU-57. [1][5]
President Trump announced the completion of the mission via social media at 7:50 p.m. Eastern Time, stating that U.S. aircraft had successfully exited Iranian airspace. [4] In a national address two hours later, he declared that the targeted sites had been “obliterated” and warned that any future Iranian retaliation would trigger a “far greater” response unless Tehran reengaged in negotiations. [2][3][5]
According to news reports, Iranian officials confirmed that the facilities were struck but claimed that personnel had been evacuated in advance and denied that critical infrastructure was destroyed. However, independent satellite analysts reported what appeared to be visible craters and significant structural damage at the Fordo site based on available imagery. [2][5] Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization condemned the strikes as a “barbaric violation” of international law. [2][5]
The U.S. strike occurred in the context of a broader regional escalation. On June 12, Israel had launched a series of airstrikes against Iranian nuclear and military targets. Iran responded with missile attacks against Israeli positions, triggering days of continued exchanges. [3] Following the U.S. bombing, Iranian forces launched ballistic missiles that struck Tel Aviv and Haifa, injuring at least 86 people, according to regional reports. [2][5]
In the United States, the strikes prompted bipartisan concern over executive authority. Some members of Congress questioned the constitutional basis for the action. Representative Thomas Massie, who had introduced legislation earlier in 2025 to limit unauthorized military operations against Iran, criticized the president’s decision and was subsequently rebuked by Trump for “defending the Constitution.” [6] The episode has intensified debate over the separation of powers and the role of Congress in authorizing military force.
⚖️ The Constitution, the Law, and Democratic Norms
The June 22 U.S. airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities raise urgent constitutional and legal questions. This section examines whether the president’s actions complied with the U.S. Constitution, statutory law, and democratic norms. It also assesses whether international legal frameworks may have been contravened—and whether the administration’s stated justifications align with established facts.
📜 U.S. Constitutional and Statutory Framework for Declaring War
Constitutional Provisions
Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the sole authority to declare war:
“The Congress shall have Power... To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.”
Article II, Section 2 names the president as Commander in Chief—but only of forces “when called into the actual Service of the United States”:
“The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States... when called into the actual Service of the United States.”
The framers were explicit: the power to initiate hostilities rests with Congress. During the Constitutional Convention, Alexander Hamilton clarified that the executive would “have the direction of war when authorized or begun” [1], underscoring Congress’s role in initiating armed conflict.
Historical Precedent: In 1798, President John Adams authorized U.S. naval action during the Quasi-War with France, but only after Congress granted specific authorizations. Reflecting concern over executive overreach, James Madison warned:
“The Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it.” [2][11]
⚖️ Statutory Provisions
War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. §§ 1541–1548)
Congress enacted the War Powers Resolution to limit unilateral executive action in initiating hostilities. It requires:
Consultation with Congress “in every possible instance” before introducing U.S. forces into hostilities;
Notification to Congress within 48 hours of such action;
Withdrawal of forces within 60 days unless Congress grants specific authorization.
The law was adopted, in Congress’s words, “to fulfill the intent of the framers... and insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply” in decisions involving the use of military force. [3]
Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF, 2001)
Passed in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, the 2001 AUMF authorizes military force only against:
Those who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the 9/11 attacks; or
Those who harbored such individuals or groups.
Iran is not covered under this authorization. No link has been established between Iran and the 9/11 attacks, and Congress has not amended the AUMF to include Iran.
As legal analyst Brian Finucane writes in Just Security, any attempt to invoke the 2001 AUMF to justify the June 22 airstrikes would be unsupported by the text of the law and legally invalid. [4]
🧭 Intelligence Community Assessment
In March 2025, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard testified:
“The intelligence community continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon, and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003.” [5]
No subsequent intelligence assessments have been made publicly available that contradict this assessment.
In public remarks on June 17 and June 20, President Trump dismissed Gabbard’s statement, saying:
“I don’t care what she said… She’s wrong.” [5]
According to multiple news reports, Gabbard was not included in final policy deliberations leading up to the airstrikes. [7] The apparent exclusion of the Director of National Intelligence raises concerns about compliance with the War Powers Resolution, which requires informed consultation with Congress “in every possible instance.”
Post-Strike Intelligence Assessment: Following the June 22 airstrikes, a preliminary Defense Intelligence Agency assessment concluded that the strikes "set back Tehran's nuclear program by a matter of months" rather than achieving the "total obliteration" claimed by the administration. The White House disputed this assessment, calling it "flat-out wrong". Regardless of the military effectiveness of the operation, the constitutional and legal questions about authorization remain. [13]
🌍 International Law
Under Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, member states are prohibited from using force against the territorial integrity or political independence of another state. The only two exceptions recognized under international law are:
Self-defense following an armed attack, as defined in Article 51; or
Authorization by the UN Security Council.
The June 22 U.S. strikes were not conducted in response to an armed attack on the United States, nor did they receive Security Council approval. The U.S. has not presented verifiable evidence of an “imminent threat” that might justify preemptive self-defense.
Iran, a party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), had not been shown to be in violation of its treaty obligations at the time of the strike. As legal scholar Brian Finucane writes:
“Under international law, the strikes likely constitute an unlawful use of force absent an actual or imminent armed attack or Security Council mandate.” [4]
🧭 Deeper Context: How the Supreme Court Helped Erode Congressional War Powers (Updated June 26, 2025)
In addition to congressional passivity, the president’s ability to launch military strikes without authorization has also been enabled by the judiciary. As constitutional law scholar Steve Vladeck explains in a June 19, 2025 analysis, the Supreme Court has played a quiet but pivotal role in shifting war powers toward the presidency. Since the Vietnam War, the Court has repeatedly declined to hear challenges to unauthorized uses of military force, citing procedural doctrines like “standing” and the “political question” doctrine. By refusing to weigh in, the Court has made it harder, even for members of Congress, to contest unilateral military action in court.
Vladeck also identifies a second, less visible judicial shift: the 1983 INS v. Chadha decision, which struck down the “legislative veto.” Until then, Congress could stop unauthorized military deployments with a simple majority vote. Once that tool was invalidated, lawmakers were left with slower, harder-to-pass legislation that typically requires a veto-proof supermajority, often too late to constrain the president.
🔍 “The better reading of the Constitution,” Vladeck writes, “to say nothing of common sense, is that it shouldn’t have to be [this hard to rein in unauthorized war-making].” [15]
Recognizing this deeper erosion of institutional guardrails by both political branches and the courts underscores the urgency of congressional reassertion. The longer this imbalance goes uncorrected, the greater the risks to both democracy and peace.
⚖️ Were the Legal and Constitutional Standards Met?
Each of the following standards serves as a benchmark for evaluating whether the President’s decision to launch airstrikes on Iran complied with domestic and international law, as well as democratic norms. Based on available information and expert analysis, these standards do not appear to have been met:
📜 U.S. Constitution
Standard: Under Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, only Congress has the power to declare war.
Was it met? ❌ No
Explanation: Congress did not authorize the strikes and was not consulted in advance. Legal scholar Michael Glennon explains:
"The Constitution does prohibit the president from using armed force in attacking a country such as Iran unless there is an attack on the United States or the threat of an imminent attack." [8]
🕰️ War Powers Resolution (1973)
Standard: Requires the President to consult with Congress before introducing U.S. forces into hostilities, and limits such deployments without congressional approval to cases involving imminent threats.
Was it met? ❌ No
Explanation: Based on available public reporting, there is no indication that the President consulted Congress prior to the operation. Lawmakers were reportedly notified only after the airstrikes began. As legal experts note, this falls short of the statute’s requirement for “consultation in every possible instance” [9].
🪖 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF)
Standard: Authorizes force only against those responsible for the September 11, 2001, attacks or those who harbored them.
Was it met? ❌ No
Explanation: Iran is not named in the 2001 AUMF and has no established link to the 9/11 attacks. As former State Department legal adviser Brian Finucane notes:
“The administration makes no argument that the operation was undertaken pursuant to the 2001 AUMF—and it could not credibly do so.” [4]
🌍 U.N. Charter / International Law
Standard: Article 2(4) of the U.N. Charter prohibits the use of force except in self-defense (Article 51) or when authorized by the U.N. Security Council (Article 42).
Was it met? ❌ No
Explanation: The United States did not present verifiable evidence of an imminent attack or seek Security Council authorization. Finucane writes:
“Under international law, the strikes likely constitute an unlawful use of force absent an actual or imminent armed attack or Security Council mandate.” [4]
🏛️ Democratic Norms
Standard: In a constitutional democracy, major military actions are expected to be grounded in accurate intelligence, conducted with legislative oversight, and publicly justified in ways that build trust in governing institutions.
Was it met? ❌ No
In March 2025, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard testified under oath that Iran was not actively building a nuclear weapon and that its nuclear weapons program had not been reauthorized since it was suspended in 2003 [10]. In the days leading up to the June 22 airstrikes, President Trump publicly rebuked her testimony, calling it "wrong." Gabbard subsequently issued a statement asserting that U.S. intelligence showed Iran could now produce a nuclear weapon "within weeks to months"—a statement she said aligned with the President’s view and accused the media of distorting her original remarks. [14]
However, no new or independently verified intelligence assessment was presented to Congress before the strikes. The President justified the operation using broad assertions of threat, without securing congressional authorization or releasing evidence of an imminent attack.
⚖️ Historical Precedents: A Pattern of Expanding Executive War Powers
The 2025 airstrikes on Iran are part of a decades-long trend in which U.S. presidents from both parties have used military force without prior congressional declarations of war.
From Truman’s intervention in Korea (1950) to Obama’s Libya strikes (2011), successive administrations from both parties have cited emergency, humanitarian, or international justifications to bypass Congress. In some cases, force was used with vague or partial legislative support; in others, Congress was not consulted at all.
While the legal rationales varied, the cumulative effect has been the steady erosion of Congress’s constitutional war powers. Legal experts across the political spectrum have voiced concern about this trend, which many see as undermining democratic accountability and violating the checks and balances envisioned by the Framers.
“Each time Congress fails to reassert its authority, executive power expands by default. That’s how norms erode.”
— Michael Glennon, international law scholar【12】
📎 For a detailed breakdown of five key historical cases—including Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Kosovo, and Libya—see Appendix A.⚖️ Historical Precedents: Use of Force Without Formal Congressional Declarations.
⚖️ Why It Matters
In our Constitutional Republic, the power to initiate war does not belong to a single individual. It is a shared responsibility delegated by the Constitution, constrained by law, and subject to public accountability. The U.S. Constitution grants Congress, not the President, the authority to declare war [1]. This structure was intentionally designed to prevent unilateral decisions that could entangle the nation in conflict without broad deliberation and consent.
The War Powers Resolution of 1973 reaffirms this constitutional design. It requires the President to consult with Congress before introducing U.S. forces into hostilities, and it limits such engagement to 60 days without explicit congressional authorization [2]. These safeguards are meant to ensure that decisions about war are taken deliberately and with democratic oversight.
While not binding U.S. law, Just War Theory has long served as an ethical framework for evaluating the legitimacy of armed conflict. Its principles, such as legitimate authority, just cause, and last resort, have influenced the development of international law and align with constitutional values that prioritize lawful, proportionate, and justified responses to threats [3]. These values echo the intent behind Congress’s war powers and the legal constraints on executive military action.
When military force is used outside of these legal and ethical frameworks, it raises profound constitutional concerns and risks setting dangerous precedents. If a President can authorize large-scale strikes without congressional approval or credible evidence of an imminent threat, the constitutional guardrails designed to prevent unjustified war begin to erode.
This is not merely about a single military action or administration. It is a test of whether the limits placed on presidential war powers: legal, constitutional, and moral remain enforceable and meaningful, or whether they can be bypassed in moments of crisis or political convenience.
This moment is another test of whether the legal and moral constraints on war-making remain meaningful in practice or whether they will be set aside in the name of expediency or political gain.
In a constitutional republic, no branch of government is above the law or immune from oversight. The Legislative (Article I), Executive (Article II), and Judicial (Article III) branches are coequal, each charged with ensuring that our institutions operate within constitutional and statutory limits. These branches are not obstacles to one another—they are essential to preserving the balance of power and ensuring the continuity of our democratic system.
✍️ Today’s Action
The Constitution authorizes Congress, not the Executive Branch, the grave responsibility to decide when the United States goes to war. That’s not just a rule, it’s a safeguard to prevent unilateral decisions on military actions.
When that process is bypassed, it is a Constitutional and legal contravention that can endanger lives, liberty and the trust in our democracy.
That’s why we the people have a vital role to play. By urging our elected representatives to speak up now, we help restore balance, uphold the rule of law, and remind Congress that their constitutional authority is also their constitutional responsibility.
1) 📩 Email your Senators and Representative all at once in 3 easy steps:
Copy the message below
Click here to Go to Democracy.io
Paste the message (personalize if you’d like), fill in your info, and click Submit
📝 Message to Congress
Subject: Uphold Constitutional and Statutory War Powers—Congress Must Reassert Its Role
I am writing to urge you to speak out and take immediate steps to defend one of the most fundamental principles of our Constitutional Republic: that the power to declare war rests with Congress and not with the Executive Branch.
On June 21-22, 2025 the President of the United States ordered airstrikes against Iranian nuclear sites without congressional authorization. This military action, carried out absent a declaration of war, a formal authorization for use of military force, or evidence of imminent threat, raises serious constitutional concerns. It also contravenes the requirements of the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which mandates that the President consult Congress before introducing U.S. forces into hostilities and obtain approval for sustained military engagements.
This is not the first time executive war powers have exceeded their constitutional bounds. Over the past several decades, presidents from both parties have increasingly sidestepped Congress when initiating military action—from Vietnam to Kosovo, from Libya to Syria. While these past episodes are often debated on their own terms, they have collectively contributed to the erosion of congressional authority over matters of war and peace.
The Constitution matters. The separation of powers is not an inconvenience—it is a guardrail designed to prevent the very kind of unilateral escalation that has drawn our nation into protracted and unjust wars in the past. We must not allow this to become precedent.
If Congress remains silent in the face of such executive overreach, we risk eroding not only the War Powers Clause but also the legitimacy of the legislative branch itself. I respectfully urge you to:
Publicly reaffirm that only Congress has the authority to authorize war under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.
Demand a full congressional debate and vote on any future use of force involving Iran or other sovereign nations.
Investigate whether the June 22, 2025 airstrikes violated statutory or constitutional requirements, including the War Powers Resolution. And, if they did, work in a bipartisan manner to ensure that these breaches do not continue.
The United States must not use force without clear legal justification, transparent public debate, and accountability to the people through their elected representatives. Upholding this principle protects not just our national security, but the moral and constitutional integrity of our democracy.
Thank you for your service and for your commitment to the Constitution. We must uphold the co-equality of the branches to ensure the checks and balances that are needed.
2) 📲 Text RESIST to 50409 or message via facebook.com/resistbot (where you can send an email, text, or fax!)
Copy the message below (and personalize if you’d like)
Text RESIST to 50409 or Message Via facebook.com/resistbot
📝 Message (Shorter format for Text Messages to Senators)
Subject: Uphold Constitutional and Statutory War Powers
I am writing to urge you to speak out and take immediate steps to defend one of the most fundamental principles of our Constitutional Republic: that the power to declare war rests with Congress.
The June 22, 2025 airstrikes on Iran were ordered without congressional authorization. No president—regardless of party—should bypass Congress to use military force. Please reaffirm that only Congress can declare war, demand a full debate on future strikes, and investigate whether this action violated the War Powers Resolution. Upholding the Constitution is of paramount importance to our democracy.
📚Footnotes
Footnotes - What Happened
John Ismay and Lazaro Gamio, “A Timeline of the U.S. Attack in Iran,” New York Times, June 22, 2025, https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/22/us/us-bomb-iran-nuclear-timeline.html.
Thomas Mackintosh and Nadine Yousif, “What We Know About US Strikes on Three Iranian Nuclear Sites,” BBC News, June 22, 2025, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvg9r4q99g4o.
Janet Loehrke et al., “Israel-Iran Timeline: How Israeli Attack and Iranian Retaliation Unfolded,” USA Today, Updated June 24, 2025, https://www.usatoday.com/story/graphics/2025/06/17/israel-iran-timeline-maps-graphics/84240285007/.
Heather Cox Richardson, “Letters from an American,” June 21, 2025.
BBC. “What we know about US strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites.” June 22, 2025. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvg9r4q99g4o
Washington Post, "Rep. Thomas Massie, a longtime GOP maverick, faces Trump’s fiercest wrath yet", June 23, 2025, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/06/23/trump-thomas-massie-bum-loser/
Footnotes: ⚖️ The Constitution, the Law, and Democratic Norms
History News Network. Exercising Congress’s Constitutional Power to End a War. March 12, 2007. https://www.hnn.us/article/exercising-congresss-constitutional-power-to-end-a
James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, April 2, 1798. Library of Congress. https://www.loc.gov/item/mjm013469/.
War Powers Resolution of 1973. Nixon Presidential Library. https://www.nixonlibrary.gov/news/war-powers-resolution-1973
Brian Finucane, “The Trump Administration’s Flawed War Powers Report on Iran and the Need for a Congressional Rebuttal,” Just Security, June 24, 2025. https://www.justsecurity.org/115398/trump-justification-attacking-iran-congressional-rebuttal/
Robert Farley and Lori Robertson, “Trump, Gabbard Comments on Iran Nuclear Capability,” FactCheck.org, June 18, 2025. https://www.factcheck.org/2025/06/trump-gabbard-comments-on-iran-nuclear-capability/.
Heather Cox Richardson, “June 21, 2025,” Letters from an American, June 22, 2025. Letters from an American, June 22, 202
NBC News. Tulsi Gabbard sidelined in Trump administration discussions on Israel and Iran. June 18, 2025. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-administration/tulsi-gabbard-sidelined-trump-administration-discussions-israel-iran-rcna212702
[NPR, “Can a president declare war without consulting Congress? Here's what to know,” June 23, 2025. https://www.npr.org/2025/06/23/nx-s1-5442396/iran-war-trump-power-congress-constitution
NPR, ibid. See discussion of the War Powers Resolution and commentary from Michael Glennon.
FactCheck.org, “Trump, Gabbard Comments on Iran Nuclear Capability,” June 18, 2025; citing March 2025 testimony by DNI Tulsi Gabbard. https://www.factcheck.org/2025/06/trump-gabbard-comments-on-iran-nuclear-capability/
CRS, Instances of Use of U.S. Armed Forces Abroad, 1798–2023 https://sgp.fas.org/crs/natsec/R42738.pdf
NPR. “Can a president declare war without consulting Congress? Here's what to know”, June 23, 2025. https://www.npr.org/2025/06/23/nx-s1-5442396/iran-war-trump-power-congress-constitution
CBS News. “Trump's strikes on Iran set back nuclear program by months, initial intel assessment finds”. June 25, 2025. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-iran-strikes-set-back-nuclear-program-by-months-intel-assessment/
Time. “Breaking Down Trump’s Public Rebuke of Tulsi Gabbard’s Statement on Iran—and Her Response”. June 22, 2025. https://time.com/7296421/trump-public-rebuke-tulsi-gabbard-iran-nuclear-weapon-statement/
Steve Vladeck, “The Supreme Court Helped Erode Congressional War Powers. Now It Can Help Fix Them,” One First, June 19, 2025. https://stevevladeck.substack.com/p/the-supreme-court-helped-erode-congressional
Footnotes - Why It Matters
U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8: “The Congress shall have Power... To declare War.”
War Powers Resolution of 1973, 50 U.S.C. §§ 1541–1548.
David Z. Kaufman, “The Laws of War,” American Bar Association, May 10, 2024. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/senior_lawyers/resources/experience/2024-april-may/laws-war/. Kaufman explains how the principles of Just War Theory—legitimate authority, just cause, and proportionality—inform international law and reflect values foundational to democratic governance.
Appendix A (Updated): Historical Precedents — Presidents Who Authorized Military Force Without Specific Congressional Approval
Note (Updated June 26, 2025): Appendix A was updated to include additional examples across multiple administrations to offer a clearer picture of how U.S. presidents have historically used military force without direct congressional authorization.
This appendix provides historical context for understanding how U.S. presidents have exercised military power without formal congressional declarations of war. The examples below span parties, decades, and regions—but raise consistent constitutional concerns about the balance of power between the Executive and Congress.
🛡️ 1. President Harry S. Truman — Korean War (1950)
Conflict: North Korea invaded South Korea in June 1950; U.S. forces intervened under UN Security Council auspices.
Congressional Authorization: ❌ No formal declaration of war. Congress approved military funding but did not vote to authorize the conflict.
Legal Standing Summary: Truman framed the operation as a UN police action. While Congress appropriated funds, many scholars view this as the beginning of expansive presidential war powers without direct legislative approval.
Citations: CRS, pp. 16–17[1]
🛡️ 2. President Lyndon B. Johnson — Vietnam War Escalation (1964)
Conflict: U.S. military involvement escalated after the Gulf of Tonkin incidents.
Congressional Authorization: ✅ Gulf of Tonkin Resolution (1964)
Legal Standing Summary: Congress authorized broad military action without a declaration of war. Later scrutiny revealed the resolution was based on disputed intelligence, prompting long-term concerns about unchecked executive authority.
Citations: CRS, pp. 27–28[1]
🛡️ 3. President Richard Nixon — Cambodia Bombing (1969–1970)
Conflict: Secret U.S. bombing of North Vietnamese targets in Cambodia.
Congressional Authorization: ❌ None.
Legal Standing Summary: Conducted covertly and without informing Congress, the action fueled public outrage and helped spur the passage of the War Powers Resolution (1973). Often cited as a prime example of executive overreach.
Citations: CRS, p. 29[1]
🛡️ 4. President Ronald Reagan — Grenada Invasion (1983)
Conflict: U.S. invasion of Grenada to oust a Marxist regime and rescue American medical students.
Congressional Authorization: ❌ None.
Legal Standing Summary: Congress was informed after the fact. The operation lasted a few days and was broadly supported, but it bypassed prior congressional approval and raised concerns about executive unilateralism.
Citations: CRS, p. 35[1]
🛡️ 5. President George H. W. Bush — Panama Invasion (1989)
Conflict: Operation Just Cause to depose Manuel Noriega.
Congressional Authorization: ❌ None.
Legal Standing Summary: Conducted without congressional debate. Justified as protecting American citizens and combatting drug trafficking, but widely criticized for executive overreach.
Citations: CRS, p. 36[1]
🛡️ 6. President Bill Clinton — Kosovo Air Campaign (1999)
Conflict: NATO-led bombing campaign during the Kosovo crisis.
Congressional Authorization: ❌ No. The House failed to pass a resolution supporting the action.
Legal Standing Summary: The administration cited NATO backing and humanitarian necessity, but legal justification was contested. Congress neither authorized nor directly blocked the campaign, leaving a gray constitutional area.
Citations: CRS, p. 38[1]
🛡️ 7. President George W. Bush — Targeted Killing in Yemen (2002)
Conflict: November 2002 drone strike in Yemen killed six suspected al-Qaeda operatives.
Congressional Authorization: ❌ No specific geographic authorization.
Legal Standing Summary: The Bush administration invoked the 2001 AUMF to justify the strike, but it was outside any active combat zone. Legal scholars questioned whether the AUMF permitted force in countries beyond Afghanistan without congressional debate or approval.
Citations: Santa Clara Journal of International Law, pp. 17–19[2]
🛡️ 8. President Barack Obama — Libya Airstrikes (2011)
Conflict: NATO intervention in Libya during the Arab Spring.
Congressional Authorization: ❌ No.
Legal Standing Summary: The Obama administration claimed the operation did not constitute “hostilities” under the War Powers Resolution, thus bypassing the 60-day notification rule. Many legal scholars and lawmakers disagreed with this interpretation.
Citations: CRS, p. 43[1]
🛡️ 9. President Joseph R. Biden — Airstrikes on Houthis in Yemen (2024–2025)
Conflict: U.S. airstrikes in retaliation for Houthi attacks on Red Sea shipping.
Congressional Authorization: ❌ No.
Legal Standing Summary: Biden ordered coordinated strikes with allied nations without seeking congressional approval. Lawmakers including Rep. Ro Khanna argued the action violated the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution.
Citations: The Nation (Jan. 22, 2024)[3]
🛡️ 10. President Donald J. Trump — Operation Midnight Hammer: Iran Airstrikes (2025)
Conflict: Bombing of Iranian nuclear sites, June 21–22, 2025.
Congressional Authorization: ❌ None.
Legal Standing Summary: Conducted without prior congressional approval and over the objection of U.S. intelligence assessments. The administration submitted a War Powers Resolution notification only after the strikes. Legal experts argue the strike violated both the War Powers Act and constitutional limits on executive war-making.
Citations: Just Security (Finucane, 2025)[4]
📂 Footnotes
Congressional Research Service, Instances of Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad, 1798–2023. Updated Dec. 14, 2023. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL32170
Mary Ellen O’Connell, Counterterrorism Uses of Force: The Laws of War and Jus ad Vim, Santa Clara Journal of International Law, Vol. 12, Issue 1 (2014), pp. 17–25. https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/scujil/vol12/iss1/1
Rep. Ro Khanna, President Biden Needs to Go to Congress for Authorization on Yemen, The Nation, Jan. 22, 2024. https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/biden-war-powers-congress-yemen/
Brian Finucane, The Trump Administration’s Flawed War Powers Report on Iran and the Need for a Congressional Rebuttal, Just Security, June 24, 2025. https://www.justsecurity.org/96889/the-trump-administrations-flawed-war-powers-report-on-iran-and-the-need-for-a-congressional-rebuttal/
Archived: 📚 Appendix A: Five Precedents of U.S. Use of Force Without Formal Declarations of War
These cases illustrate how U.S. presidents from both parties have used military force without a formal declaration of war. While each instance involved different justifications, all raised questions about the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches.
🛡️ 1. President Harry S. Truman — Korean War (1950)
Conflict: North Korea invaded South Korea in June 1950; U.S. forces intervened under UN Security Council auspices.
Congressional Authorization: ❌ No formal declaration of war. Congress approved military funding but did not vote to authorize the conflict.
Legal Standing Summary: Truman framed the operation as a UN police action. While Congress appropriated funds, many scholars view this as the beginning of expansive presidential war powers without direct legislative approval.
Citations:
Congressional Research Service (CRS), Instances of Use of U.S. Armed Forces Abroad, 1798–2023, pp. 16–17【11】
Scott Neuman, NPR, “Can a president declare war without consulting Congress?” (June 23, 2025)【12】
🛡️ 2. President Lyndon B. Johnson — Vietnam War (1964 escalation)
Conflict: U.S. military involvement escalated after the Gulf of Tonkin incidents.
Congressional Authorization: ✅ Gulf of Tonkin Resolution (1964)
Legal Standing Summary: Congress authorized broad military action without a declaration of war. Later scrutiny revealed that the resolution was based on disputed intelligence, prompting long-term concerns about unchecked executive authority.
Citations:
CRS, pp. 27–28【11】
NPR【12】
🛡️ 3. President Richard Nixon — Cambodia Bombing (1969–1970)
Conflict: Secret U.S. bombing of North Vietnamese targets in Cambodia.
Congressional Authorization: ❌ None.
Legal Standing Summary: Conducted covertly and without informing Congress, the action fueled public outrage and helped spur the passage of the War Powers Resolution (1973). Often cited as a prime example of executive overreach.
Citations:
CRS, p. 29【11】
NPR (Glennon & Griffin)【12】
🛡️ 4. President Bill Clinton — Kosovo Air Campaign (1999)
Conflict: NATO-led bombing campaign during the Kosovo crisis.
Congressional Authorization: ❌ No. The House failed to pass a resolution supporting the action.
Legal Standing Summary: The administration cited NATO backing and humanitarian necessity, but legal justification was contested. Congress neither authorized nor directly blocked the campaign, leaving a gray constitutional area.
Citations:
CRS, p. 38【11】
NPR【12】
🛡️ 5. President Barack Obama — Libya Airstrikes (2011)
Conflict: NATO intervention in Libya during the Arab Spring.
Congressional Authorization: ❌ No.
Legal Standing Summary: The Obama administration claimed the operation did not constitute “hostilities” under the War Powers Resolution, thus bypassing the 60-day notification rule. Many legal scholars and lawmakers disagreed with this interpretation.
Citations:
CRS, p. 43【11】
NPR (Michael Glennon critique)【12】
Footnotes:
CRS, Instances of Use of U.S. Armed Forces Abroad, 1798–2023 https://sgp.fas.org/crs/natsec/R42738.pdf
NPR. “Can a president declare war without consulting Congress? Here's what to know”, June 23, 2025. https://www.npr.org/2025/06/23/nx-s1-5442396/iran-war-trump-power-congress-constitution
That closes out today’s edition and we’ll be back soon. Together, we can:
Together, we can:
Read to understand the stakes. 📚
Share to build a clearer civic reality. 🤝
Act by writing, emailing, and calling our elected officials. 📬
Thank you for being here!
In solidarity,
Engage for Democracy