Legal Authority of Military Strikes: Analyzing Trump’s Actions Against Iran**

The legality of President Trump's military strikes on Iran has been debated among lawmakers and constitutional experts. While some assert that he acted within his rights under Article II, others argue he should have consulted Congress, raising questions about the balance of military power.**

Former President Donald Trump’s decision to order strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities has sparked significant debate regarding its constitutional legality. Lawmakers from both parties, including notable Republican figures, have raised concerns over Trump’s authority to act without congressional approval.

Republican Congressman Thomas Massie criticized the strikes on social media as “not Constitutional,” while his colleague Warren Davidson expressed skepticism about any constitutional justification for the action. Contrarily, House Speaker Mike Johnson defended Trump, arguing that the president assessed an imminent threat that justified swift action, citing a tradition of presidential military decisions from both parties.

Legal experts consulted by BBC Verify are divided on the issue, examining the relevant constitutional clauses. Article I of the Constitution grants Congress the authority to declare war, while Article II designates the president as Commander in Chief of the military, leading to interpretations that support the president's right to use force under specific circumstances such as imminent threats or national interest advancements, like preventing nuclear proliferation—Trump’s stated rationale for the strikes.

Professor Claire Finkelstein, from the University of Pennsylvania, and other constitutional scholars affirm that Trump had some legal grounding for the strikes under Article II, citing a long-standing precedent of unilateral military actions by presidents without congressional consent. Conversely, Bowdoin College's Andrew Rudalevige argued that the specific context of the strikes did not reflect an immediate threat requiring urgent military response.

Historically, the power of Congress to declare war has rarely come into play, with the last instance occurring in 1942 following the Pearl Harbor attack. Over decades, this power has diminished as presidents increasingly have engaged in military actions without legislative approval. This trend is echoed by John Bellinger, a former legal adviser to President George W. Bush, noting Congress’s growing acquiescence to executive military actions.

Trump’s precedents appear consistent with historical actions of past presidents. Barack Obama, for instance, authorized airstrikes in Libya in 2011 without congressional consent, as did Bill Clinton during the 1990s in the Balkans. Notably, Trump himself previously ordered the assassination of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani in 2020 without congressional oversight.

Critics, however, have pointed to the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which was designed to limit the president’s military engagements without congressional consultation. While the law does allow for emergency military action, it stipulates that the president should consult Congress before hostilities. Reports suggest Trump did not follow this mandate rigorously, as Congressional leaders, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, were only informed shortly before the strikes occurred.

In response to inquiries about compliance with the War Powers Resolution, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth stated that Congress was notified after military actions took place, which has sparked further debate about the necessity and timing of such notifications.

As the discourse continues, the implications of Trump’s actions are prompting lawmakers, legal scholars, and the public to reflect on the balance of military power between the presidency and Congress in the context of national security decisions.