Israel-Iran War: Can Trump bomb Iran without asking? Capitol Hill says no, invokes War Powers Act

Time of India

2 hours ago

President Donald Trump is keeping his cards close. When asked whether the United States would join Israel's escalating military confrontation with Iran, he simply said, 'I may do it. I may not.' That was on June 18, just days after Israel launched strikes on Iranian territory.
Since then, speculation has grown over whether Trump might authorise a U.S. military operation—without getting the green light from
Congress
.
According to
Department of State
spokeswoman Tammy Bruce, 'He is the singular guiding hand about what will be occurring from this point forward.'
But many lawmakers disagree. And they're rushing to reassert control.
Congress says, "Not without us"
The U.S. Constitution is clear: only Congress has the power to declare war.
Live Events
'This is not our war,' said Republican Representative
Thomas Massie
of Kentucky. 'Even if it were, Congress must decide such matters according to our Constitution.'
Massie has introduced a resolution under the 1973 War Powers Act to stop any unauthorised U.S. strikes on Iran. He's joined by Democrat Ro Khanna of California, who posted on X, 'Are you with the neocons who led us into Iraq or do you stand with the American people?'
Over in the Senate, Democrat
Tim Kaine
has introduced a similar resolution. 'This resolution will ensure that if we decide to place our nation's men and women in uniform into harm's way, we will have a debate and vote on it in Congress,' he said.
The War Powers Act: What it actually does
Passed in 1973 after the Vietnam War and President Nixon's secret bombing of Cambodia, the War Powers Act was designed to limit the president's ability to launch military action unilaterally.
It says, The president must notify Congress within 48 hours of launching military action.
Military deployment without congressional approval is limited to 60–90 days.
Congress must be consulted 'in every possible instance' before troops are committed abroad.
The law was passed over Nixon's veto—but almost every president since has found ways to work around it.
Why it's back in the spotlight
As Israeli airstrikes continue and Trump hints at joining in, lawmakers worry that the U.S. could be dragged into another prolonged Middle East war. That's exactly what the War Powers Act was supposed to prevent.
Bernie Sanders, the independent senator from Vermont, has proposed the
No War Against Iran Act
, which would prohibit the use of federal funds for any attack on Iran without a formal declaration of war or congressional authorisation.
'The recent escalation of hostilities between Israel and Iran could quickly pull the United States into another endless conflict,' Senator Kaine warned.
Can the President Act without Congress?
Technically, the president is commander-in-chief of the military. Under Article II of the Constitution, Trump can respond to 'sudden attacks' or threats. But the power to start a war—that belongs to Congress.
Still, history tells a different story.
Since World War II, U.S. presidents have authorised military operations in Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf, Libya, Somalia, and more—without formal declarations of war. They've relied instead on broad laws like the 2001 and 2002 Authorisations for Use of Military Force (AUMFs), passed after the 9/11 attacks and before the 2003 Iraq invasion.
Trump used the 2002 AUMF to justify the assassination of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani in 2020.
So does the War Powers Act have any real power?
It's complicated.
Congress can vote to end military action, but the president can veto that decision. Overriding a veto requires a two-thirds majority in both the
House
and Senate—a rare feat in a divided Washington.
In 2019, Congress tried to end U.S. support for the Saudi-led war in Yemen. Trump vetoed it. Then again in 2020, after the Soleimani strike, Congress passed a bill to limit Trump's powers to launch war on Iran. Trump vetoed that too.
The War Powers Act has been criticised for being more symbolic than effective. Even President Joe Biden once led a Senate subcommittee that concluded the law was falling short of its original purpose.
Opinions split, even within parties
Not all Democrats back Kaine's resolution. Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania has said he would vote against it. He believes Trump should retain the option to preemptively strike Iran's nuclear infrastructure.
On the Republican side, some are more cautious. Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky said: 'No president can bomb another country without the permission of Congress.' He added, 'It's always been my belief that you don't go to war without the approval of Congress and bombing other countries is obviously war.'
But others support Trump's freedom to act. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas said, 'A single bombing run, historically, has not been understood to require congressional authorisation.' Sustained warfare, he agreed, would require Congress to act.
Senator Lindsey Graham took it a step further. 'If diplomacy is not successful,' he said, 'I would urge President Trump to go all in… If that means flying with Israel, fly with Israel.'
The House and Senate are currently on recess, but both will be forced to vote on the new resolutions once they return. The outcome will test the strength of Congress's war-making authority.
Meanwhile, Trump has made it clear he's watching the conflict closely. After cutting short a G7 trip in Canada, he returned to Washington and declared, 'We now have complete and total control of the skies over Iran.' He added, 'We know exactly where the so-called 'Supreme Leader' is hiding... We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now.'
At its heart, this isn't just a legal or political issue. It's about whether the people, through their elected representatives, get to decide when America goes to war.
For decades, war decisions have been drifting away from Congress and towards the
Oval Office
. This moment could shift that balance—or cement it.
With Iran's nuclear programme in the crosshairs, and Israel already striking, the next move could redraw the map of the Middle East—and reshape America's role in it.
And if history is any guide, the decision could be made by one man, not 535 lawmakers.