Does Trump have the authority to declare war on Iran?
President Donald Trump's announcement that he would make a decision in two weeks about whether to directly involve US forces in Israel's war on Iran has reignited a longstanding constitutional debate on exactly what military powers America's leader has.
The President has indicated in recent days that the US could carry out strikes against Iran in support of its ally. Israel began attacking Iran on June 13, saying it aimed to prevent its archenemy from developing nuclear weapons. Iran retaliated with missile and drone strikes on Israel.
According to the US Constitution, it's the Congress - the House of Representatives and the Senate - that has the power to declare war.
This stretches back to 1973, when Congress passed the War Powers Act - also referred to as the War Powers Resolution - which sought to prevent the executive branch from declaring war without congressional approval. It was initiated shortly after a series of presidents unilaterally escalated the Vietnam war, specifically when Richard Nixon ordered the bombing and invasion of Cambodia without a green light from Congress.
Yet there are several loopholes that various US presidents have used since the passage of the War Powers Act to exercise their ability to influence military policy.
There's nothing in the legislation that prevents the White House from assisting other countries, with the current example being Israel.
Some legal experts have also pointed out that the US Constitution, specifically Article II Section 2, states that "[the] President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States" - that is, the White House has a legal precedent to try and mobilise the US military to some extent.
"There is a constitutional ambiguity between the role of Commander-in-Chief and the congressional power to declare war," said Timothy Kneeland, a professor of history, politics and law at Nazareth University in upstate New York.
Prof Kneeland said that shortly after the September 11, 2001, terror attacks, George W Bush, president at the time, sought and obtained authorisation from Congress to use military force in both Afghanistan and Iraq,
These so-called Authorisations to Use Military Force (AUMF) have since been used to justify actions against ISIS and Hezbollah, as well.
"It may be that President Trump will use this as a pretext should he decide to attack Iran, which has been identified with supporting Hezbollah, listed as a terrorist organisation in the US," Prof Kneeland said, noting that laws passed after 9/11 blurred clarity on who could declare war.
It could also be a matter of semantics, with the US providing assistance to Israel without ever mentioning war.
Yet there is already pushback from Democrats and Republicans, as politicians seek to head off any potential unilateral decision by Mr Trump to move ahead with military action against Iran.
In the Senate, Democratic Senator Tim Kaine introduced a resolution seeking to make debate and a vote compulsory before any military strike on Iran. And in the House of Representatives, Republican Thomas Massie introduced a similar resolution related to the situation in Iran.
Yet resolutions like this, compared to laws, often lack enforcement mechanisms.
Prof Kneeland also points out that constitutionally, Mr Trump could easily block them.
"These are subject to President Trump's veto power and would require a two-thirds majority to override the presidential veto," he said. "With both the House and Senate in the hands of the Republicans, who overwhelmingly support President Trump, this seems highly unlikely."
So, even with the 1973 War Powers Act, the ball appears to be in Mr Trump's court.
Iran, meanwhile, is holding talks with European powers as its war with Israel enters a second week.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Middle East Eye
37 minutes ago
- Middle East Eye
On World Refugee Day, scores of families approved for resettlement in US are stuck in limbo
Friday, 20 June, marks International Refugee Day, but celebrations across the US have been muted since the Trump administration's 20 January refugee ban remains firmly in place. Since the ban was implemented, around 12,000 refugees who had security screenings and were booked for travel to the US had their flights cancelled. Another approximately 108,000 remaining refugees who had been 'conditionally approved' to come to the US remain stranded in precarious situations overseas. Only a very small number of refugees are currently being resettled and allowed to access support services under exceptions to the refugee ban. The Biden administration had announced a target of 125,000 refugees for fiscal year 2025, and according to the United Nations, there were 42.7 million refugees worldwide at the end of 2024. Refugees currently being settled in the US include dozens of white South Africans and approximately 160 refugees protected by an injunction under a lawsuit known as Pacito vs Trump. While multiple lawsuits against the ban have been, and are being filed in courts, the Pacito vs Trump case, filed by International Refugee Assistance Project (IRAP) in February, is one of the most significant and high-profile challenges to the refugee ban. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters The class action lawsuit filed by IRAP represents a group of nine individuals affected by the ban and several refugee resettlement agencies seeking to have the executive order and suspension of refugee-related funding declared illegal and their implementation halted. It also looks to restore vital funding to the United States Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP). On 5 May, the Western District Court of Washington issued a compliance order to the government to process and provide resettlement support to refugees who were conditionally approved and had travel scheduled before 20 January 2025. This order covers 160 individuals who had imminent travel plans as of 20 January and will retain protection under the ruling. On 15 May, the district court also affirmed that the government must immediately resume the processing of around 11,840 vulnerable refugees who were conditionally approved for resettlement with confirmed travel plans before the executive order. Laurie Ball Cooper, vice president for US legal programmes at IRAP, affirmed that some more people may be eligible to resume their plans to come to the US. 'In addition, among the remaining - approximately 12,000 people minus the 160 - there are surely people who can meet the standard set by the Ninth Circuit of showing that they have a strong reliance interest in the travel and therefore are still protected by the injunction,' she said. 'The district court has indicated that they will set up a process using a special neutral individual [special master] to adjudicate disputes around who meets that standard and who does not. But that process hasn't started yet,' Ball Cooper said. 'Bittersweet' From the approximate 108,000 refugees who were 'conditionally approved', Ball Cooper remains optimistic that the current litigation would also be able to find them some relief. 'Our underlying litigation continues to challenge the executive order as it applies to all refugees, and so over the long term, I hope that we will prevail on those arguments and see people able to proceed to safety.' USRAP was created in 1980 by the Refugee Act of 1980 to provide a safe and legal pathway for people fleeing persecution, war, or conflict to come to the United States to either join with family or to meet foreign and humanitarian policy priorities of the US government. Despite political rhetoric that often scapegoats refugees as a burden, refugees are a fiscal success for the United States. Based on a study commissioned by the Trump administration during his first term, refugees were shown to contribute $63 billion more in federal, state, and local taxes than they had taken in services and assistance between 2005 and 2014. US grants dozens of white South Africans refugee status Read More » 'Every refugee who enters is someone who is able to pursue the life that they are meant to be able to pursue here: in many cases, to reunite with family members, to join communities that are ready to welcome them. So every single arrival is something worth celebrating, and more should be coming!' Ball Cooper added. Despite the statistical net positive that refugees bring to the US, celebrations on World Refugee Day have been bittersweet. 'I would describe observances of International Refugee Day today as mixed,' Ball Cooper said. She said that everyone in refugee communities or refugee-serving communities was continuing to take time today to celebrate the many ways refugees 'enrich our communities in the US, and the great joy it is for those of us who get to know, work with and live with refugees'. 'At the same time, it is certainly bittersweet, because there are so many tens of thousands of refugees who should be here already, and they're not because of the refugee ban,' she said. 'This is deeply sad, extremely frustrating, heartbreaking and life-threatening for many of the refugees themselves.'
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Israel and Hamas on UN blacklist for violence against children for second year running
Israel and Hamas are back on a UN "list of shame" for grave abuses against children in conflict zones for the second year running. An annual report for 2024, issued by UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres and released on Friday, identified nearly 20 conflict zones worldwide where the rights of children under 18 have been violated. The report includes a list that names groups and armed forces responsible for abuses such as killing and maiming children, recruiting minors for violence, kidnappings, denying humanitarian aid and sexual violence. The report for 2024 said more than 8,500 incidents had been verified in Israel and Palestine - the highest globally - with 2,917 Palestinian and 15 Israeli children killed or maimed. The October-December 2023 period saw a sharp spike, with 1,637 Palestinian children killed and 1,147 injured, compared to two Israeli child deaths. 'These figures represent real children whose lives have been violently torn from them, whose schools have been bombed, and who have been left without access to life-saving humanitarian aid,' said Bethany Ellis, director of Watchlist on Children and Armed Conflict. The report also called out Israel's military operations in Lebanon, where more than 500 children were killed or injured last year. Violence against children in war zones around the world surged to 'unprecedented levels' last year, with the highest number of grave abuses recorded in nearly three decades. The report documented a 25 per cent surge in severe abuses against children compared to 2023, continuing a worsening trend. 'In 2024, violence against children in armed conflict reached unprecedented levels, with a staggering 25 per cent surge in the number of grave violations,' the report said. A total of 41,370 violations were verified – 36,221 committed in 2024 and 5,149 from prior years but newly confirmed – the highest since the UN began systematic monitoring. The figure surpasses 2023's record, which itself saw a 21 per cent rise from 2022. More than 4,500 children were killed and 7,000 injured, with minors enduring 'the brunt of relentless hostilities and indiscriminate attacks', the report said. It also noted a sharp increase in children suffering several acts of abuse, with 22,495 such cases recorded. 'The cries of 22,495 innocent children who should be learning to read or play ball but instead have been forced to learn how to survive gunfire and bombings, should keep all of us awake at night,' said Virginia Gamba, special representative of the UN Secretary General for children and armed conflict. 'This must serve as a wake-up call. We are at the point of no return."
Middle East Eye
2 hours ago
- Middle East Eye
Judge orders immediate release of Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil
A US federal judge has ordered the release of Mahmoud Khalil from immigration custody as his legal fight continues to play out. The Trump administration's deportation case against the Palestinian activist and US green card holder is not over yet, but now that he will be out on bail, Khalil will be able to hold his newborn son for the very first time. The decision is a landmark victory for rights organisations that said Khalil's constitutionally protected freedom of speech was not just trampled upon, but he was "punished". Judge Michael Farbiarz said on Friday that the Trump administration was unable to make its case that Khalil would be a danger to the public or a flight risk if released from an immigration detention facility in Jena, Louisiana, where he was secretly transferred after his arrest. Farbiarz, a New Jersey district court judge who is overseeing Khalil's case, last week ruled it was unconstitutional to detain and deport Khalil, a lawful permanent resident, for supporting Palestinian human rights, and that he should be released from detention. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters The court gave the government until Friday morning to appeal. The government then told the court on Friday that it would continue to detain Khalil in Louisiana, saying that Khalil had omitted information on his green card application. "There is at least something to the underlying claim that there is an effort to use the immigration charge here to punish the petitioner (Khalil)," Farbiarz said, adding that punishing someone over a civil immigration matter is unconstitutional. While Farbiarz acknowledged that the government virtually never detains anyone on 'misrepresentation' charges, he said he would uphold their appeal, and did not grant Khalil's release. The government will continue to try to deport Khalil as the case continues. Who is Mahmoud Khalil? When the student protests began at Columbia University following the 7 October 2023 Hamas-led attacks on southern Israel and the subsequent war on Gaza, Khalil functioned as an intermediary between students and university administrators over the student movement's demands for university divestment from weapons companies profiting from Israel's war on Gaza. Khalil did not participate in the encampments himself, opting instead to negotiate with administrators and offer guidance to the students. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents detained Khalil on 8 March. His wife, Nour Abdalla, was eight months pregnant. He became the first of a string of international student arrests outside their homes, often by plainclothes masked agents who would not tell them why they were being taken away, or to what location. The one thing they all had in common, despite not knowing one another, is that they opposed the war in Gaza in a public forum or had significant ties to someone who did. Khalil has been held at an ICE prison facility in Jena, Louisiana, since early March. His lawyers believe the Trump administration finds immigration judges in the south to be more favourable to the US government. In April, one of those judges said that Khalil could be deported even though he was a permanent US resident through his wife, an American citizen. According to the Associated Press, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio had insisted that Khalil's "presence or activities would compromise a compelling US foreign policy interest'. Marc Van der Hout, one of Khalil's lawyers, said in a statement issued after that ruling that Khalil had been 'subject to a charade of due process', adding his deportation order was 'a flagrant violation of his right to a fair hearing, and a weaponisation of immigration law to suppress dissent'. Van der Hout then turned to Farbiarz to put a stop to that order. The immigration court's refusal to allow Khalil to attend the birth of his son was a double blow to his family.
