There's a legal way to go to war. Trump flouting the Constitution isn't it.
Members of Congress, who for the last five months have surrendered their authority as a coequal branch of government, need to step up and force Trump to follow the law.
Let's start with the obvious: It can come as no surprise that President Donald Trump willfully – gleefully, even – violated the U.S. Constitution when he ordered bombers to drop "bunker busting" munitions on Iranian nuclear enrichment facilities Saturday, June 21.
Trump's second term in the White House has been a slapdash streak of constitutional overreaches, forcing federal judges from district courts to the U.S. Supreme Court to order him to obey the law.
But this also comes as no surprise because American presidents, Democrats and Republicans, have a long history of paying little heed to the section of our Constitution that specifically grants Congress the power to declare war. That's been the law of our land since the Constitution was ratified more than 200 years ago.
Say whatever you like about the motivation – and there are some fine arguments being made for containing Iran's nuclear program – but dropping more than a dozen 30,000 pound bombs on another country is an act of war.
American presidents have also played fast and loose in the past five decades with the War Powers Resolution, passed by Congress in 1973 in reaction to our military being committed to far away battlegrounds without congressional approval. Congress overrode a veto from then-President Richard Nixon to create that law, requiring a president to alert the House and Senate within 48 hours of military hostilities and then end them in 60 days unless Congress approves.
Another view: AOC howls about impeaching Trump. But president had the authority to bomb Iran. | Opinion
Let's stop here to ponder all the absurdities that can happen in a Trump administration in 60 days.
What can Trump do in 60 days? A terrifying amount.
Here's a refresher: 60 days ago, Trump was passing his 100th day in office and was still floating the notion of seeking a third term, which the Constitution also prohibits, even as his approval rating was tanking.
What will Trump be doing 60 days from now? If the question doesn't concern you, then you haven't been paying attention.
Trump's approval rating tanks: Trump pivots to distractions as polls show collapsing support for his agenda | Opinion
Speaking of polling, dropping bombs on Iran was not something Americans were clamoring for. An Economist/YouGov Poll released four days before Trump ordered the mission found that just 16% of Americans supported military action against Iran, while 60% opposed it and 24% were not sure. Among Trump's own party, 53% of Republicans opposed it.
That's not to say Americans are fans of the Islamic theocracy that rules Iran. And they shouldn't be. Half of the Americans polled found that repressive regime to be an enemy of our country, while just 5% saw Iran as an ally.
Preventing Iran from refining weapons-grade uranium to build a nuclear weapon is a sensible foreign policy, one that has been supported by past presidents regardless of political party. Even so, despite Trump's predictable claims of victory after the bombing run, it seems nobody but Iran is really sure where that country's stockpile of uranium is right now.
Like Neocons before him, Trump might have hung the "mission accomplished" banner prematurely.
That's not the only messaging Trump mucked up here. Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio spent the weekend telling Americans that the Trump administration was not attacking Iran to force regime change. Trump, just a few hours later, made it clear he is wide open to the idea of regime change in Iran.
Vance also stepped into a deep hole when talking about Iran after the bombs dropped. In a June 22 interview on NBC News' "Meet The Press," the vice president tried to soothe the rancor stirring among many Trump supporters who backed him for his pledge of ending "forever wars" by saying American military troubles in the Middle East in the past 25 years were due to "dumb presidents."
Two questions for the vice president. First, does he remember that Trump was president during four of those 25 years? And second, why does his knowledge of history only go back 25 years?
Congress needs to wake up now, not in 60 days
Iran had a democratically elected prime minister who led a secular government and a thriving nation until he dared to anger the American and British governments by seeking to control his country's oil industry. The CIA staged a coup in 1953, with the approval of then-President Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican, that installed a dictator who was so corrupt and brutal that he inspired the Islamic revolution that seized control of that country and still rules there today.
Historians call that unintended consequences.
And Trump's bombing of Iran has sparked bipartisan concern about just that in Congress, with resolutions gaining traction in the House and in the Senate to force Trump "to remove United States Armed Forces from unauthorized hostilities" in Iran.
Some consequences are predictable. Iran fired missiles at an American military base in Qatar two days after our bombs dropped on their country. And protesters took to the streets in America, demanding that Trump stand down in his unlawful war against Iran.
Maybe this will de-escalate from here. Maybe this will get worse. Trump, two days after the bombs dropped, announced that Iran and Israel, which started the attacks on Iran two weeks ago, will now start phasing in a ceasefire.
This, of course, is the same Trump who, while proudly announcing the bombings on June 21, demanded that Iran make peace. That sort of obvious disconnect from rational thinking is troubling.
That's why members of Congress, who for the past five months have surrendered their authority as a coequal branch of government, need to step up like the federal courts have and force Trump to follow the law. And not 60 days from now. Right now.
Follow USA TODAY columnist Chris Brennan on X, formerly known as Twitter: @ByChrisBrennan. Sign up for his weekly newsletter, Translating Politics, here.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Insider
29 minutes ago
- Business Insider
Trump is testing how far presidential immunity will go to save him millions
A federal appeals court will weigh a question important to Donald Trump on Tuesday morning: Can presidential immunity save him $83.3 million? In January 2024, a jury ordered Trump to pay the millions in defamation damages for his many attacks on the writer E. Jean Carroll, where he disparaged her as a liar and insulted her appearance after she accused him of sexually assaulting him in the 1990s at a Bergdorf Goodman department store near Trump Tower in Manhattan. According to a Forbes estimate, Trump's net worth is $5.2 billion. It's boomed since he won the 2024 presidential election thanks to his ownership of Truth Social and numerous crypto investments. The Carroll verdict is about 1.6% of his estimated worth. Before the trial, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Trump had forfeited the right to argue he had presidential immunity in the civil case because he waited too long to bring it up. But last year, the Supreme Court adopted a more robust conception of presidential immunity — one that protects presidents from criminal cases. That broader, more sweeping view should also cover Trump in the Carroll case and wipe away the massive jury award, the president's lawyers now argue. "Presidential immunity — even if it could be waived at all, which is not the case — cannot be inadvertently forfeited," Trump's lawyers argued in their appeal brief for the Carroll case. Carroll took Trump to trial twice Carroll's first defamation lawsuit against Trump, filed in 2020, was stalled for years in courts in New York and Washington, DC, because it concerned comments Trump made while he was still president. The Justice Department argued at the time that Trump was immune from the lawsuit because of the Westfall Act, a law that protects government employees from legal action for statements they make as part of their job. After completing his first term in office, Trump continued to attack Carroll on social media and at campaign rallies. Carroll filed a second lawsuit against Trump in November 2022, alleging defamation as well as sexual abuse. That second lawsuit, unencumbered by questions of presidential immunity, went to trial in 2023 in Manhattan federal court. In May of that year, the jury found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation and ordered him to pay Carroll $5 million. After the trial for the second lawsuit was over, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals cleared the way for a second trial over the first lawsuit, agreeing with a lower court that Trump had waived the right to argue that he had presidential immunity because he brought it up too late. The Justice Department — then under the Biden administration — also dropped its position that Trump's statements about Carroll were part of his presidential duties, writing in a court filing that "sexual assault was obviously not job-related." Carroll's first lawsuit finally went to trial in January of 2024. After not showing up to the first trial, Trump briefly testified in the second. Because another jury had already found Trump liable for defamation for calling Carroll a liar over her sexual abuse claims, the jury in the second trial only had to decide how much Trump would pay in additional damages for statements he made while he was president, as well as other insults he had hurled at Carroll since the conclusion of the first trial. They settled for $65 million in punitive damages, $7.3 million to compensate Carroll, and $11 million to help repair her reputation — a total of $83.3 million. Trump invoked the Supreme Court's recent immunity decision Trump's appeal brief calls the case "a miscarriage of justice" and says the Second Circuit got it wrong. "Presidential immunity shields from liability President Trump's public statements issued in his official capacity through official White House channels," they wrote in a brief. Carroll's attorney Roberta Kaplan argued in her own brief that presidential immunity — like all other forms of immunity in the American legal system — can be waived. "If there were ever a case where immunity does not shield a President's speech, this one is it," she wrote. "Donald Trump was not speaking here about a governmental policy or a function of his responsibilities as President. He was defaming Carroll because of her revelation that many years before he assumed office, he sexually assaulted her." John Sauer, who argued the immunity case on Trump's behalf before the Supreme Court, also filed appeal briefs in the Carroll case. In September, Sauer urged the Second Circuit in an oral argument to toss the jury verdict against Trump in the first Carroll trial, in part because it featured testimony from other women who said Trump sexually abused them. The court upheld that verdict earlier this month. Sauer is now serving as the Justice Department's solicitor general in the second Trump administration. And on Wednesday, the court denied a motion from the Justice Department to take over Trump's defense. Court filings indicate Justin D. Smith, a Missouri-based attorney at Sauer's former law firm, will argue against Kaplan at Tuesday's hearing. Smith didn't respond to a request for comment from Business Insider. In two of Trump's other high-profile appeals, Trump has retained the Big Law firm Sullivan & Cromwell. They're fighting a half-billion-dollar civil fraud judgment against the Trump Organization as well as a Manhattan jury verdict that found Trump guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business documents as part of the Stormy Daniels hush-money scandal. In the criminal case, Sullivan & Cromwell — which argued their appeal before the Second Circuit earlier this month — also leans heavily on the Supreme Court's immunity decision. In that case, Trump's lawyers said additional arguments should be held in federal courts, not state courts, which would make future decisions easier to appeal directly to the Supreme Court.
CNN
31 minutes ago
- CNN
Oil is falling so much it's now cheaper than it was before the Iran-Israel conflict
Oil prices fell sharply Tuesday, returning to levels last seen before the Iran-Israel conflict, as investors cheered news of a ceasefire, albeit fragile, between the two countries. Brent crude, the global oil benchmark, was trading 4.3% lower on the day early Tuesday morning ET at $68.44 a barrel, while West Texas Intermediate crude, the US oil benchmark, was also trading 4.3% down at $65.55 a barrel. These levels are broadly comparable to the closing prices before Israel launched an unprecedented attack on Iranian nuclear facilities on June 13. That assault triggered a 12-day conflict that has led both sides to fire a barrage of missiles into the other's territory, as well as direct military involvement by Israel's biggest ally, the United States. US President Donald Trump announced the ceasefire late Monday ET, though hours later Israel accused Iran of violating the terms and vowed to launch fresh strikes on Tehran. Iran denied the allegations. US stock futures were in the green. The Dow was on track to open 262 points, or 0.6%, higher. S&P 500 futures were 0.7% higher, while futures in the tech-heavy Nasdaq rose 1%. In Asia, stock indexes closed the day higher. Hong Kong's Hang Seng finished up 2% and mainland China's Shanghai Composite was 1.2% higher on the day. Meanwhile, in Europe, the benchmark STOXX Europe 600 index, which includes UK-listed companies, was trading 1.2% up by early morning ET. 'We've seen a pretty remarkable de-escalation of tensions in the Middle East,' analysts at Deutsche Bank wrote in a note Tuesday. 'The past 12 days look set to join the long list of geopolitical shocks that proved temporarily disruptive but had little lasting effect on markets.' However, with Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell testifying before Congress Tuesday and tensions still running high, markets could turn on a dime. 'Markets breathed a sigh of relief following Trump's ceasefire declaration, but the celebration could be short-lived,' said Lukman Otunuga, senior market analyst at FXTM, in a note to investors. 'If tensions flare again or the ceasefire is violated, we could see a swift return to risk aversion – boosting safe havens like gold and pressuring global equities.' The ceasefire makes it less likely that global oil supplies will be disrupted. Many investors have been worried that Iran could close the Strait of Hormuz, a critical waterway ferrying around a quarter of the world's oil supply, according to figures from the International Energy Agency. That scenario – which would likely send oil prices skyward – now appears less of a threat. Goldman Sachs has estimated that oil prices could blow past $100 a barrel if there is an 'extended disruption' to the strait. Assuming the ceasefire holds, Brent crude could hover 'near the $70 per barrel level while clarity on a US-Iran deal emerges,' said Mukesh Sahdev, global head of commodity markets at Rystad Energy, a consultancy, Tuesday. 'The prospect of severe economic fallout from a potential blockade (of the strait) likely motivated both sides to agree to the ceasefire, if it is indeed genuine,' he wrote in a note. While oil prices shot up after the Iran-Israel conflict began – touching a five-month high last week – they tanked Monday after Iran launched targeted and limited missile strikes on US bases in Qatar. US crude tumbled 7.2% to settle at $68.51 a barrel, the biggest one-day drop since early April and one of its worst days over the past three years. Brent closed at $71.48 a barrel, down 7.2%, the steepest decline since August 2022 . Matt Egan contributed reporting.
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
South Korea May Delay US Trade Deal Over Threats To Its China-Based Chipmakers
Benzinga and Yahoo Finance LLC may earn commission or revenue on some items through the links below. South Korea is preparing to confront U.S. officials over potential restrictions on chipmakers operating in China. What Happened: Ahead of the third round of tariff talks in Washington this week, South Korean Trade Minister Yeo Han-koo said he will raise industry concerns over possible U.S. curbs that could hurt Korean semiconductor firms in China, reported Reuters. 'I will pass on the concerns among those in the industry and take utmost care,' Yeo told reporters before departing for Washington on Sunday. Don't Miss: Maker of the $60,000 foldable home has 3 factory buildings, 600+ houses built, and big plans to solve housing — you can become an investor for $0.80 per share today. Peter Thiel turned $1,700 into $5 billion—now accredited investors are eyeing this software company with similar breakout potential. Learn how you can invest with $1,000 at just $0.30/share. The talks were originally expected to conclude with a trade agreement by July 8, but Yeo indicated that the deadline may slip due to political and economic uncertainties in the U.S., the report added. Why It's Important: Seoul is currently subject to a 10% blanket tariff, with an additional 25% country-specific duty temporarily suspended for 90 days. Yeo, who was appointed this month by newly elected President Lee Jae Myung, also plans to meet officials at the White House and U.S. Congress to discuss multiple trade issues, including a U.S. request for South Korea to relax its restrictions on American beef imports. South Korean chipmakers, including Samsung Electronics Co. (OTC:SSNLF) and SK Hynix, rely heavily on Chinese operations and new U.S. policies could upend their supply chains. Earlier this month, it was reported SK Hynix has secured custom high-bandwidth memory (HBM) orders from Nvidia Corp (NASDAQ:NVDA), Microsoft Corp. (NASDAQ:MSFT) and Broadcom Inc. (NASDAQ:AVGO). Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (NYSE:TSM) will produce the logic dies for SK Hynix's custom HBM chips. The first offering, the seventh-generation HBM4E, is expected to launch in the second half of 2026. Last year, it was reported that Chinese tech firms, including Huawei Technologies Co and Baidu Inc (NASDAQ:BIDU), were stockpiling HBM semiconductors from Samsung ahead of potential U.S. export restrictions. Read Next: Invest early in CancerVax's breakthrough tech aiming to disrupt a $231B market. Back a bold new approach to cancer treatment with high-growth potential. Arrived Home's Private Credit Fund's has historically paid an annualized dividend yield of 8.1%*, which provides access to a pool of short-term loans backed by residential real estate with just a $100 minimum. Photo courtesy: Shutterstock This article South Korea May Delay US Trade Deal Over Threats To Its China-Based Chipmakers originally appeared on Sign in to access your portfolio
