Latest news with #WarPowersResolutionof1973
UPI
8 hours ago
- Politics
- UPI
House Dems. introduce bill to limit Trump's war powers on Iran
President Donald Trump is joined by his national security team, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio (right), in the Situation Room of the White House in Washington, D.C., on Saturday, June 21, 2025, as U.S. bombers executed strikes on the Islamic Republic of Iran's nuclear infrastructure. On Monday, Democratic lawmakers introduction a resolution to restrain his ability to go to war with Iran. Photo via The White House/UPI | License Photo June 24 (UPI) -- House Democrats of the foreign affairs, armed services and intelligence committees have introduced a War Powers Act resolution to rein in President Donald Trump's ability to make war with Iran after he bombed the Middle Eastern country over the weekend. The brief two-page resolution introduced Monday directs Trump to remove the U.S. military "from hostilities" with Iran aside from those protecting the U.S. mainland, and prevents him from going to war against Iran without congressional authorization, as is required by the War Powers Resolution of 1973. "President Trump must not be allowed to start a war with Iran, or any country, without Congressional approval," Reps. Gregory Meeks, ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Adam Smith, ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee and Jim Himes, ranking member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, said Monday in a joint statement. On Saturday night, Trump directed the U.S. military to bomb three nuclear facilities in Iran. The bombing, followed by Trump making statements about regime change in Tehran, raised concerns that the United States would be entering into another war in the Middle East, and without congressional approval. The resolution, however, was introduced just hours after Trump claimed Iran and Israel had agreed to a cease-fire. The three Democratic lawmakers said that despite Trump's claims that the nuclear facilities were "obliterated," they still do not know whether the strikes eliminated Iran's nuclear weapons capabilities. "The administration has offered no clear strategy," they said in support of their resolution. "Without a coherent strategy for preventing Iran's program from bouncing back, including through diplomacy, we risk further escalation. No thoughtful deliberation nor careful planning occurred here -- and serious actions demand serious debate, not professional impulse." The resolution is a competing motion to a bipartisan measure introduced last week by Reps. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., and Ro- Khanna, D-Calif. The measures come as lawmakers, primarily Democrats, seek to restrain Trump's powers to prevent what they fear could be another Middle Eastern quagmire, just a few short years after the U.S. finally exited Afghanistan. A dozen Democratic lawmakers who served in the U.S. armed forces issued a letter Monday voicing their support for a War Powers Act resolution, stating "we refuse to make those same mistakes." "We can all agree that more debate was needed before Iraq and Afghanistan," they said in the joint letter. "We need to take the time to learn from our mistakes. We need to take the time to involve both the American people and Congress -- this is what our Founders intended, and that is what the Constitution requires." The 12 lawmakers are Reps. Salud Carbajal, D-Calif., Gil Cisneros, D-Calif., Herb Conaway, D-N.J., Chris Deluzio, D-Pa., Maggie Goodlander, D-N.H., Chrissy Houlahan, D-Pa., Ted Lieu, D-Calif., Jimmy Panetta, D-Calif., Pat Ryan, D-N.Y., Bobby Scott, D-Va., Derek Tran, D-Calif., and Eugene Vindman, D-Va.
Axios
14 hours ago
- Politics
- Axios
Trump to Senate: Iran strike was "necessary and proportionate"
President Trump informed the Senate on Monday that he ordered the military strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities under his constitutional authority and insisted that his actions were consistent with international law. Why it matters: Trump is asserting his inherent presidential power. He isn't citing any existing authorization of the use of military force previously approved by Congress. "The strike was limited in scope and purpose," Trump wrote to the Senate. "The United States discretely targeted three Iranian nuclear facilities. Iranian troops and other military facilities were not targeted. No United States ground forces were used in the strike." "I acted pursuant to my constitutional authority as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive and pursuant to my constitutional authority to conduct United States foreign relations." "The United States took this necessary and proportionate action consistent with international law and the United States stands ready to take further action, as necessary and proportionate, to address further threats or attacks." Zoom out: Sen. Tim Kaine is pushing a vote under the War Powers Resolution of 1973 to limit the president's actions in Iran.
NDTV
a day ago
- Politics
- NDTV
US War Powers Act: Can The President Declare War Alone
Until President Donald Trump confirmed that the United States carried out "very successful" strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan, he remained non-committal and ambiguous about America's involvement in Israel's war with Iran. " I may do it. I may not," Trump said on Wednesday when asked whether he planned to join the conflict. That uncertainty vanished Sunday when US military jets launched precision strikes on key Iranian nuclear sites. Shortly after the operation, Trump declared, "Now is the time for peace." This has led to debate over presidential war powers. Critics argue that Trump bypassed Congress, which, under the US Constitution, holds the sole authority to declare war. What Is The War Powers Act? The War Powers Resolution of 1973, commonly known as the War Powers Act, is a federal law intended to check the president's authority to commit US military forces to armed conflict without Congressional approval. It was enacted by Congress as a direct response to the Vietnam War (1955-75) and, more specifically, President Richard Nixon 's secret bombing of Cambodia, which killed thousands and sparked mass protests across the US. Who Can Declare War In The US? The US Constitution divides war powers between the legislative and executive branches. Under Article I, Section 8, Congress holds the power to declare war, raise and fund armies, and regulate the armed forces. Article II designates the president as Commander-in-Chief, granting the executive authority to lead the military and respond to emergencies. This division was meant to prevent unilateral decisions about war by any one branch of government. Can A President Strike Without Congressional Approval? Under the War Powers Act, if the president sends US troops into combat or near conflict, they must tell Congress within 48 hours. After that, the president can keep troops there for up to 60 days without approval. If Congress doesn't give the green light, the president has 30 more days to pull the troops out, making a maximum of 90 days without official authorisation. When Did The US Last Declare War? The last time the US formally declared war was in 1942, during World War II, against Bulgaria, Hungary, and Romania. Since then, the US has engaged in some deadly wars, including Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf War, Afghanistan, and Iraq, without formal declarations. It has also carried out military interventions and airstrikes in countries like Libya, Serbia, Somalia, and Yemen, relying instead on congressional authorisations or presidential powers. How Does The US Go To War Without Declaring It? The US has often bypassed formal war declarations by using Authorisations for Use of Military Force (AUMFs), laws passed by Congress to allow specific military actions. After 9/11, the 2001 AUMF gave President George W Bush broad powers to target al-Qaeda and its allies. In 2002, a second AUMF-authorised action against Iraq led to the 2003 invasion. Both laws remain in effect and have been used by later presidents to justify military operations far beyond their original scope. For instance, President Donald Trump cited the 2002 AUMF to justify the 2020 drone strike on Iranian General Qassem Soleimani.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Presidents' ordering military action without Congress' approval has become routine. Here's why.
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump's decision to order strikes in Iran — among the most consequential he has made as commander in chief — is the latest example of a U.S. president's taking military action without first seeking congressional approval. And experts say that, while his power over American armed forces isn't absolute, there's most likely little lawmakers will do. Trump is supposed to submit to Congress a legal justification for having bombed Iran's nuclear facilities within 48 hours after the operation began. Unlike tangible consequences Trump has faced for other moves in which he tested the bounds of executive power — such as court rulings against him — any price he might pay for this decision would largely play out in the American political arena and on the world stage, where the U.S. reputation is on the line. 'Presidents over the last 25 years have certainly been stretching the envelope of presidential authority to use force,' John Bellinger, adjunct senior fellow for international and national security law at the Council on Foreign Relations, told NBC News. 'Using force more and more, deploying the military more and more, without congressional authority — and Congress, with a few persistent objectors, has simply acquiesced in that.' The limits on presidential power to use military force are set out in sections of the U.S. Constitution, the War Powers Resolution of 1973 and the United Nations Charter. Article 1 of the Constitution makes it clear: Congress — and no other part of the federal government — has the power to declare war. But that's something Congress hasn't formally done in more than 80 years, since World War II. While Congress has approved what are called Authorizations of Military Force and appropriated funds to assist in ongoing conflicts, its ability to control when the nation is at war has been diminished, in part by its own actions, while the power of the office of the president has expanded. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 is a law designed to provide a check on the president's power to involve the United States in military action without the consent of Congress. It was passed over President Richard Nixon's veto in the wake of the Vietnam War, which Congress never actually declared as a war, though it did authorize force in the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. According to the War Powers Resolution, 'in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced' when war hasn't been declared, the president has 48 hours to notify, in writing, the speaker of the House and the Senate president pro tempore. The act requires that the notification include why the president took the action, the authority under which it was taken and 'the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.' And the resolution also says any time a president uses the armed forces without notifying Congress beforehand, that use must be terminated within 60 days. Bellinger said any notification to Congress that Trump sends, which Bellinger told NBC News the Justice Department is likely to prepare, will probably rely on the authority granted to the president in Article II of the Constitution, which makes the president the commander in chief. President Joe Biden cited Article II in 2021 after he ordered strikes in Iraq and Syria that he said were targeting an 'Iranian-backed militia group responsible for recent attacks on U.S. personnel in Iraq.' Though Congress acted after the U.S. withdrew from Vietnam to restrain presidents in their use of military force, recent decades have seen presidents push against those restraints. On March 23, 1999, the Senate approved NATO airstrikes against what was then Yugoslavia to force a Serbian withdrawal from the province of Kosovo. But when the strikes began 24 hours later, the House had yet to approve the resolution, and a month later, in a tie vote, it rejected the Senate resolution amid increased concerns of greater U.S. military involvement in the area. In March 2011, a coalition of NATO forces, which included the United States, began a military campaign to intervene in the Libyan civil war to protect civilians. While President Barack Obama ordered it, he didn't seek advance approval from Congress. By June, the House had passed a resolution calling for a withdrawal of U.S. troops from the region and demanded that the Obama administration explain why it didn't ask Congress for permission first. In April 2017, during Trump's first term, he didn't seek congressional authorization before he ordered a missile strike in Syria in response to the Syrian government's use of chemical weapons. 'It is in this vital national security interest of the United States to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons,' he said in televised remarks after the strikes. Bellinger, who helped draft Authorizations for Military Force under President George W. Bush, said it isn't always that way. On Jan. 12, 1991, the Senate voted in favor of a resolution authorizing the use of military force against Iraq in response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, after President George H.W. Bush asked it to do so. In September 2001 and again in October 2002, President George W. Bush asked Congress to authorize the use of armed force, first in response to the Sept. 11 attacks and then to target Saddam Hussein and his Iraqi government. 'To strike a country like Iran, I think this does go far beyond what other presidents have done,' Bellinger said. Congress, however, may not have the appetite to fight Trump over it. 'Given that a lot of people in Congress tend not to want to buck the president or obviously some of them agree with his actions anyway,' Curtis Bradley, a professor at University of Chicago Law School, said in an interview, 'it seems unlikely at the moment that Congress would, you know, use its statutory powers to try to end or restrict the conflict.' U.S. courts are also unlikely to get involved. The judicial branch has limited authority over a president when it comes to his decisions about military action and the use of force. 'The lower courts, when they get these cases, tend to say, sorry, this is very complicated,' Bradley said. 'They say it's really to be resolved by the political institutions and not the courts.' 'Even if it is unconstitutional, I don't see it's likely that courts will be the ones to police that,' he added. International law, including the U.N. Charter, lays out very clearly what is and isn't justified when a country decides to use force. Article II of the U.N. Charter orders 'all members' to settle their international disputes 'by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.' While a separate section of the U.N. Charter allows for military action to be taken in self-defense, experts say, that argument will be harder for the Trump administration to make in this scenario. 'The idea that you could just ... attack because, in the long run, you think your strategic interests will be harmed does not fit with the charter under anybody's reasonable definition of self-defense,' Bradley said. But what does a violation of the U.N. Charter mean? Not much, experts say. 'It wouldn't be the first time, unfortunately, where the U.S. is doing something that probably violates the charter,' Bradley said. 'That ends up being more about diplomacy, rather than something that would directly stop a president from acting.' Bellinger believes that even without any direct domestic or international legal consequences, the implications of Trump's decisions are wide-ranging. 'It's going to be more of a political cost at home, and it's going to be more of a reputational cost for the United States around the world.' This article was originally published on
NBC News
2 days ago
- Politics
- NBC News
Presidents' ordering military action without Congress' approval has become routine. Here's why.
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump's decision to order strikes in Iran — among the most consequential he has made as commander in chief — is the latest example of a U.S. president's taking military action without first seeking congressional approval. And experts say that, while his power over American armed forces isn't absolute, there's most likely little lawmakers will do. Trump is supposed to submit to Congress a legal justification for having bombed Iran's nuclear facilities within 48 hours after the operation began. Unlike tangible consequences Trump has faced for other moves in which he tested the bounds of executive power — such as court rulings against him — any price he might pay for this decision would largely play out in the American political arena and on the world stage, where the U.S. reputation is on the line. 'Presidents over the last 25 years have certainly been stretching the envelope of presidential authority to use force,' John Bellinger, adjunct senior fellow for international and national security law at the Council on Foreign Relations, told NBC News. 'Using force more and more, deploying the military more and more, without congressional authority — and Congress, with a few persistent objectors, has simply acquiesced in that.' The limits on presidential power to use military force are set out in sections of the U.S. Constitution, the War Powers Resolution of 1973 and the United Nations Charter. Article 1 of the Constitution makes it clear: Congress — and no other part of the federal government — has the power to declare war. But that's something Congress hasn't formally done in more than 80 years, since World War II. While Congress has approved what are called Authorizations of Military Force and appropriated funds to assist in ongoing conflicts, its ability to control when the nation is at war has been diminished, in part by its own actions, while the power of the office of the president has expanded. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 is a law designed to provide a check on the president's power to involve the United States in military action without the consent of Congress. It was passed over President Richard Nixon's veto in the wake of the Vietnam War, which Congress never actually declared as a war, though it did authorize force in the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. According to the War Powers Resolution, 'in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced' when war hasn't been declared, the president has 48 hours to notify, in writing, the speaker of the House and the Senate president pro tempore. The act requires that the notification include why the president took the action, the authority under which it was taken and 'the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.' And the resolution also says any time a president uses the armed forces without notifying Congress beforehand, that use must be terminated within 60 days. Bellinger said any notification to Congress that Trump sends, which Bellinger told NBC News the Justice Department is likely to prepare, will probably rely on the authority granted to the president in Article II of the Constitution, which makes the president the commander in chief. President Joe Biden cited Article II in 2021 after he ordered strikes in Iraq and Syria that he said were targeting an 'Iranian-backed militia group responsible for recent attacks on U.S. personnel in Iraq.' Presidents testing limits Though Congress acted after the U.S. withdrew from Vietnam to restrain presidents in their use of military force, recent decades have seen presidents push against those restraints. On March 23, 1999, the Senate approved NATO airstrikes against what was then Yugoslavia to force a Serbian withdrawal from the province of Kosovo. But when the strikes began 24 hours later, the House had yet to approve the resolution, and a month later, in a tie vote, it rejected the Senate resolution amid increased concerns of greater U.S. military involvement in the area. In March 2011, a coalition of NATO forces, which included the United States, began a military campaign to intervene in the Libyan civil war to protect civilians. While President Barack Obama ordered it, he didn't seek advance approval from Congress. By June, the House had passed a resolution calling for a withdrawal of U.S. troops from the region and demanded that the Obama administration explain why it didn't ask Congress for permission first. In April 2017, during Trump's first term, he didn't seek congressional authorization before he ordered a missile strike in Syria in response to the Syrian government's use of chemical weapons. 'It is in this vital national security interest of the United States to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons,' he said in televised remarks after the strikes. Bellinger, who helped draft Authorizations for Military Force under President George W. Bush, said it isn't always that way. On Jan. 12, 1991, the Senate voted in favor of a resolution authorizing the use of military force against Iraq in response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, after President George H.W. Bush asked it to do so. In September 2001 and again in October 2002, President George W. Bush asked Congress to authorize the use of armed force, first in response to the Sept. 11 attacks and then to target Saddam Hussein and his Iraqi government. 'To strike a country like Iran, I think this does go far beyond what other presidents have done,' Bellinger said. Congress, however, may not have the appetite to fight Trump over it. 'Given that a lot of people in Congress tend not to want to buck the president or obviously some of them agree with his actions anyway,' Curtis Bradley, a professor at University of Chicago Law School, said in an interview, 'it seems unlikely at the moment that Congress would, you know, use its statutory powers to try to end or restrict the conflict.' U.S. courts are also unlikely to get involved. The judicial branch has limited authority over a president when it comes to his decisions about military action and the use of force. 'The lower courts, when they get these cases, tend to say, sorry, this is very complicated,' Bradley said. 'They say it's really to be resolved by the political institutions and not the courts.' 'Even if it is unconstitutional, I don't see it's likely that courts will be the ones to police that,' he added. The U.N. International law, including the U.N. Charter, lays out very clearly what is and isn't justified when a country decides to use force. Article II of the U.N. Charter orders 'all members' to settle their international disputes 'by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.' While a separate section of the U.N. Charter allows for military action to be taken in self-defense, experts say, that argument will be harder for the Trump administration to make in this scenario. 'The idea that you could just ... attack because, in the long run, you think your strategic interests will be harmed does not fit with the charter under anybody's reasonable definition of self-defense,' Bradley said. But what does a violation of the U.N. Charter mean? Not much, experts say. 'It wouldn't be the first time, unfortunately, where the U.S. is doing something that probably violates the charter,' Bradley said. 'That ends up being more about diplomacy, rather than something that would directly stop a president from acting.' Bellinger believes that even without any direct domestic or international legal consequences, the implications of Trump's decisions are wide-ranging. 'It's going to be more of a political cost at home, and it's going to be more of a reputational cost for the United States around the world.'
