The U.S. airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities are igniting a firestorm of debate over presidential war powers, with critics arguing that President Trump’s decision to act without prior congressional approval violates the Constitution.
The strikes, targeting sites like Iran’s heavily fortified Fordo nuclear facility, follow a pattern of U.S. military actions abroad that sidestep Congress, a practice spanning decades.
But the high-stakes nature of bombing Iran—a regional powerhouse with the potential for devastating retaliation—has brought renewed scrutiny to this contentious issue.
Why do these strikes spark such outrage when unilateral action is so common? And what does history tell us about America’s approach to war powers?
B-2 stealth bombers in coordination with Israeli forces, struck Iranian nuclear sites, including Fordo, a deeply buried facility central to Iran’s nuclear program. The operation is part of a broader campaign following Israel’s initial strikes on June 13, aimed to cripple Iran’s nuclear ambitions amid stalled diplomatic talks and reports of Iran nearing critical and dangerous weapons-grade uranium enrichment.
The U.S. strikes, like so many before them, were conducted without prior congressional authorization. But they prompted fierce criticism, including from some of Trump’s fellow Republicans.
Democrats like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries labeled the action unconstitutional, with some even raising the specter of impeachment.
Some progressive lawmakers were joined by libertarian-leaning Republicans like Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) in arguing that targeting a sovereign nation with advanced military capabilities crosses a constitutional threshold.
“This isn’t a drone strike on a terrorist camp,” said Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA). “This is an act of war against a state that can hit back hard. Congress must have a say.”
Critics point to Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, which grants Congress the power to declare war, and the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which requires presidential notification within 48 hours of military action and withdrawal within 60 days unless Congress approves.
They argue that the scale of the Iran strikes—targeting critical infrastructure with risks of retaliation against 40,000 U.S. troops in the region—demands congressional oversight.
Iran’s deputy foreign minister warned of a “quagmire,” citing Iran’s missile arsenal, cyber capabilities, and proxy militias like Hezbollah and the Houthis.
The Trump administration is defending the strikes as a “one-shot deal” to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran, relying on Article II powers, which designate the president as Commander-in-Chief, and claiming the action falls short of “war” in the constitutional sense.
Supporters of the U.S. action, like Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY), cite historical precedents. They argue that presidents have long acted unilaterally to protect national security.
The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), a key player in shaping executive action, has consistently argued that limited strikes don’t require congressional approval unless they involve prolonged, large-scale engagements.
Yet many say the Iran strikes stand out due to their potential for escalation.
Unlike operations against non-state actors like ISIS, targeting Iran risks a regional war, with analysts warning of “unknown unknowns” like cyberattacks or missile barrages on U.S. bases like Al-Asad in Iraq or Al-Udeid in Qatar. This context fuels demands for checks on presidential power, even as history shows such unilateral actions are far from new.
Hellbound and Down 