Yesterday, I wrote a column in the Hill discussing how Trump is unlikely to go to Congress in launching an attack on Iran and how he has history on his side in acting unilaterally. The column noted that many Democratic politicians and pundits who were supportive of such unilateral actions by Democratic presidents such as Bill Clinton and Barack Obama are suddenly opposed to Trump using the same power. It is the Claude Rains School of Constitutional Law where politicians are “shocked, shocked” that Trump is using the authority that they accepted in Democratic predecessors.
Democratic members are calling for impeachment, while others are declaring the attacks unconstitutional. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is particularly shocked that Trump took the action and is calling for a vote under the War Powers Act.
Schumer insisted that “no president should be allowed to unilaterally march this nation into something as consequential as war with erratic threats and no strategy.” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries has issued a similar statement.
Schumer is the same politician who was silent or supportive in earlier unilateral attacks by Democratic presidents. In 2011, Obama approved a massive military campaign against Libya. I represented a bipartisan group of members of Congress challenging that action. We were unsuccessful, as were such prior challenges.
I have long criticized the abandonment of the clear language of the Constitution on the declaration of wars. Only eleven such declarations have been made in our history. That has not happened since World War II in 1942. Over 125 military campaigns have spanned from Korea to Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq. It is not a rule honored solely in the breach.
Democrats were supportive when Clinton launched cruise missile attacks under Operation Infinite Reach on two continents on August 20, 1998. He ordered attacks in locations in Khartoum, Sudan, and Khost Province, Afghanistan.
The War Powers Act has always been controversial and largely ineffectual. Presidents have long asserted the inherent powers to conduct such attacks under their Article II authority as the designated Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. The WPA requires the President to inform Congress within 48 hours in a written notice to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate of the action.
The WPA further bars the use of armed forces in such a conflict for more than 60 days without congressional authorization for use of military force (AUMF) or a declaration of war by the United States. There is a further 30-day withdrawal period.
President Trump reportedly did immediately notify Congress after the attack under the WPA .
Presidents have routinely ignored the WPA when it limited their ability to conduct foreign military operations. In 1999, Clinton ignored the 60-day deadline and continued to bomb forces in Kosovo. His actions were also challenged, but the court in Campbell v. Clinton just shrugged off the violation and said it was a non-justiciable political question.
In responding to the current demands, Trump could look to a curious ally: Hillary Clinton.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pushed for unilateral attacks during the Obama Administration. She dismissed the need to consult, let alone secure authorization, from Congress. In March 2011, Clinton testified that there was no need for such consultation and declared that the Administration would ignore a 60-day limit on unauthorized military actions.
Obama also defied the War Powers resolution on Syria. He actually did ask for congressional authorization to take military action in that country in 2013, but Congress refused to approve it. He did it anyway. Despite Congress expressly denying”authorization for the introduction of United States Armed Forces,” both Obama and Trump did precisely that.
Trump was wise to notify Congress. However, what occurs after that is anyone’s guess. The WPA and the AUMF have been paper tigers for decades and most in Congress wanted it that way. Politicians long ago abandoned their responsibilities to declare war. What remains has been little more than political theater.
Even under the WPA, Trump would have 60 days to prosecute this war and another 30 days to draw down forces without congressional approval. The court, in Campbell v. Clinton, noted that even if Clinton violated the WPA by continuing operations after the 60-day period, he was technically in compliance by withdrawing forces before the end of the 90-day period.
Trump could likely prosecute this campaign in 90 days. Indeed, if it goes beyond 90 days, we will likely be facing a potential global war with retaliatory strikes on both sides. In such an environment, it is very unlikely that Congress would withhold support for our ongoing operations.
In the meantime, the calls for impeachment are absurd given the prior actions of presidents in using this very authority. Once again, some Democrats appear intent on applying a different set of rules for impeaching Trump than any of his predecessors. Trump can cite both history and case law in allowing presidents to take such actions. At most, the line over war powers is murky. The Framers wanted impeachments to be based on bright-line rules in establishing high crimes and misdemeanors.
This is all part of the Claude Rains School of Constitutional Law. Members will once again express their shock and disgust in the use of the same authority that they once accepted in prior presidents. Trump has a great number of risks in this action from global military and economic consequences. The War Powers Act is not one of them if history is any measure.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and has both testified and litigated in the area of war powers, including the prior representation of members of Congress. He also testified in both the Clinton and Trump impeachment hearings.
N.B.: A slightly different version of this column ran on Fox.com
Anonymous. You need to shut up. Your domination of recent conversations is disgusting and accomplishes nothing other than exposing you ignorance.
#. The name of Mohammed’s steed —> Buraq.
Omar- we’re here and we’re not leaving.
The bigger genuine crisis both parties are guilty of:
A tit-for-tat of constitutional lawbreaking and disloyalty to the American Oath of Office – by both parties.
Ignoring law breaking and disloyalty by past officials, justifying future and bigger law breaking by future officials. This is unsustainable!
For example: Democrat FDR did many great things both legal and loyal to his Oath of Office. But FDR also rounded up American-born citizens at gunpoint, then imprisoned Americans in detention camps in the swamps of Arkansas. Most of these native born Americans were totally innocent and lost everything.
FDR was never officially viewed as a war criminal. This lack of accountability essentially legalized George W. Bush’s alleged war crimes with a near 90% failure rate. Bush also severely harmed and destroyed (for life) innocent Americans never indicted or convicted of any crime.
Since Bush was never held accountable for his alleged war crimes, now Trump is snatching people off the streets – skipping due process – transporting them to foreign nations practicing torture.
So if the U.S. Supreme Court is ignoring war crimes – based on past war crimes not being enforced – we no longer have a United States.
Even if we forgave George W. Bush and his torture attorneys – where is the “deterrent effect” to prevent future lawbreaking and future presidents disloyal to their Oath of Office? It’s a race to the bottom and this is unsustainable Justice Roberts!
One possible solution is convict FDR in absentia. Convict J. Edgar in absentia for his war crimes (Cointelpro). That keeps our living war criminals out of prison but Congress would be forced to outlaw war crimes and unconstitutional practices perpetrated by American officials.
Yes they deserve worse but this is the only way to get reforms for your kids and grandkids!
Israel’s long-distance war on Iran is working out poorly for …. Israel. Anybody notice this? Hard to get past censors there but theyve taken a beating. Has Netanyahu miscalculated?
Salot Sar
Oh right, the combination of 1970s American air power and shoddy modern Russian military “tech” is really destroying the Israeli military. It’s a bloodbath, I tell you. In reality not a single Iranian aircraft or air defense system even noticed the Americans coming AND going. I doubt that the Israelis even bother jamming. I’d be more worried sitting in a civilian airliner, at least the Iranians and Russians have proven that they can take those out.
Wow.
Here’s a free clue.
The War Powers Act of ’73 wasn’t to force the POTUS to capitulate and request permission from Congress to strike.
It was created to stop POTUS from going around Congress and getting into a long military action (war) without actually going to Congress to ask them to declare war.
It was a way to enforce Congress’s constitutional power which was usurped by Kennedy and then Johnson in Viet Nam.
When you look at it from that perspective… the Act makes sense.
When you listen to the Dims call the strike unconstitutional … you start to realize who the loons are in Congress …
-G
Chuck Schumer should know better than to join/support this cackle of uninformed members of his party. True leadership calls for supporting this nation including support of Israel which even Joe Biden stood for in October of 2023, after the iranian backed Hamas’s vicious attack on israel —-
I don’t expect anything like leadership from hakeem Jeffries, or the anti-american squad members —
So, if a provision of the Constitution has been blatantly violated for some nebulous period of time, that obviates the provision, and absolves the President (and presumably other politicians) from the need to observe it? This is from an alleged Constitutional legal scholar and expert? Should we have applied that logic to Roe v. Wade for the many years that it informed medical practice? What a spineless joke Turley makes of himself here. In addition, there are now reports from several sources that Trump informed Iran that the strikes were coming, allowing them to evacuate not only their nuclear scientists, but the enriched uranium itself, and possible some or all of the equipment required to enrich it, to safe locations ahead of time. So Trump may not only have blatantly violated the Constitution, but may have done so solely for cosmetic effect, giving himself a PR “out” from an embarrassing situation; a narcissistic, self-image grooming exercise with no sustained practical effect “on the ground”. That would be a joke and a half, but somehow I am resisting the impulse to laugh…
https://www.moonofalabama.org/2025/06/tic-toc-no-8-on-the-war-on-iran.html
Tic-Toc No. 8 On The War On Iran
This report seems genuine:
Exclusive: Iran given advance notice as US insisted attack on nuclear sites is ‘one-off’ – Amwaj
US President Donald Trump says three key nuclear facilities in Iran have been “obliterated,” while threatening more strikes “if peace does not come quickly.” This comes as Amwaj.media has learned that Washington notified Tehran of the strikes. Speaking on condition of anonymity, a high-ranking Iranian political source confirmed that the Trump administration on June 21 conveyed that it did not seek an all-out confrontation, and only intended to strike the Fordow, Isfahan and Natanz nuclear sites. Importantly, the senior source also confirmed that the targeted sites were evacuated, with “most” of Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium kept in secure locations. The Pentagon claims that 30 cruise missiles were fired from submarines against Iranian nuclear sites near Natanz, Isfahan and Fordow. The main strike was allegedly by three B-2 heavy bomber which dropped six bunker buster bombs on the buried enrichment facility in Fordow. There are doubts that this indeed has happened…
There you go again, citing “sources” without verifiable links.
While Biden was vegetating, his staff allowed 20 million unvetted aliens into this country. I didn’t see you objecting to that unconstitutional act by a president.
Blatantly violated? OR, a precedent set? “Precedent” means that “a prior decision is considered to have furnished example or authority in a similar case or situation, so in past cases (i.e., presidents’ decisions), a certain course of conduct is followed, which serves a guide for future conduct—If Congress has repeatedly allowed this, and has never taken the time to discuss and debate (never CHALLENGED it!), then the precedent stands (a de facto stare decisis).
Why Roe v. Wade does not fall into the mire of your weak reasoning?—>Because it was successfully pursued and CHALLENGED! That simple.
Is professor Turley “spineless” because you don’t like his better understanding of the law (and its gaps). No! The ad-hominem is always the first sign of inordinately emotional and illogical reasoning.
Poor Anon.
The issue is that the War Powers Act of ’73 was to prevent a POTUS usurping Congressional power to declare war without actually declaring war.
It was specifically written to not interfere w POTUS’s powers yet force POTUS to capitulate to Congress’ power under the constitution.
Trump’s actions didn’t violate the War Powers Act of ’73 because it was a single strike w no boots on the ground.
Trump attempted to negotiate w Iran. Iran ignored him, so when the talking part stops, you bring out the big stick.
If you don’t use it from time to time… it becomes less effective which makes the negotiation / talking more difficult.
Israel is still hitting Iran and taking out their military infrastructure.
-G
Trump has had ample time to consult Congress. His situation is comparable to Truman’s seizure of the railroads.
There was no urgent need for urgent need for action of any kind, least of all the chaotic and quixotic gun-play Trump launched. But Trump nevertheless violated the War Powers Act by committing the USA to participation in an in-progress war between Israel and Iran.
Yawn. So did Clinton and O-dumber.
@GStreet
Read Turley’s article. No violation occurred.
At the same time… stopping Iran from getting the bomb was the point.
Iran knew Trump would strike… just didn’t know how and when.
They reportedly removed the weapons grade uranium from these sites and has it stored elsewhere.
-G
And now, to diminish that magnificent military success.
From the talking heads on MSM: It was just a flesh wound.
#. Obviously this was not a declaration of war. It was a triple military strike delivering specialized bombs. Iran will no doubt strike the United States in its sneaky underhanded way and congress can have its chance to respond. President Trump requested peace. It’s now or later.
The democrats are one trick ponies. Always impeach and always unconstitutional is the hue and cry while they pillage and plunder.
Others are boating and walking on beaches paying no attention to any of it.
Mission accomplished, Schumer. Hakeem, Omar etc.
True. And when did an unconstitutional act of a president constitute a high crime or misdemeanor? Oh! I know. Between January 20, 2017 and January 20, 2021 and again after January 20, 2025. These are the same loons who claimed Biden was sharp as a tack whilst he was president.
Thank you for expressing my thoughts better than I could. The War Powers Act is but an example of Congress’s penchant for avoiding responsibility. Congress has consistently delegated decision making to the Executive branch to avoid responsibility and accountability for actual decisions. They do this to make it easier to get reelected. If they don’t like presidents governing by executive order they should stop giving the Executive branch agencies so much authority to make “law”. I’d love to hear a discussion between you and Philip Hamburger about this unconstitutional abdication of lawmaking by Congress.
“If they don’t like presidents governing by executive order they should stop giving the Executive branch agencies so much authority to make “law”.”
Agreed. However, by what principle do unconstitutional actions by Congress authorize equally unconstitutional actions by the two other branches of Federal government? I suspect that you know the unambiguous answer to that question as well as I do.
Because SOMEBODY has to make a decision amd take action.
No one wants Iran nuclear armed. They rank worse than North Korea. Anyone listen to ErDOGan’s speech? The moslem cancer has spread everywhere.
Recall when Christ was in the desert fasting for 40 days and the devil shows up and says bow down and worship me and I’ll give you all the riches of the world? Christ said no, my riches make you look like pauper (paraphrase). He wasn’t fooled.
Muhammed was taken away by the same devil and offered the same and he took it, he was fooled. Take heart ye of little faith, the fight is with the angels. Mohammed is false.
Now what about the sniveling Padilla, mommy, they pushed me and I was on the ground wah wah wah , after he bum rushed a press conference given by a person with innumerable death threats. When DJT will you take back American States from Mexico or will you just continue sending them money?
I applaud your writings on Jesus Christ and Satan as well as Muhammad and Satan, spot on!
Just look around, the majority of humanity will take the wide road as Christ said and few will find the narrow road.
The time God has set aside for the Gentiles to receive the gospel is perhaps nearing a close!
God’s blessings…
#. Maybe the military needs to ask congress before it can wipe its a$$. Milley and Austin did or were they just awol.
“…Congress’s penchant for avoiding responsibility” has a two-fold purpose: the obvious one is to appear to hold the higher ground when they don’t agree with a particular “Commander in Chief’s” decisions, and the less obvious (but most devastating) purpose for avoiding responsibility is to please their elite donors in obtaining re-election.
Our system of governance has become a dirty game of greedily holding onto the personal benefits of power. No wonder Biden, Pelosi, Sanders, Schumer, McConnel, and so many other old goats, won’t go away.