Below is my column on Fox.com on the legal authority for Operation Epic Fury. There are good-faith arguments that such attacks should require declarations of war. However, President Donald Trump can rely on his predecessors, including Presidents Clinton, Obama, and Biden for the authority to carry out these attacks.
Here is the column:
With the launch of the attacks on Iran, some have already declared the action unconstitutional. That includes the immediate condemnation of Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.). The precedent, however, favors the President in this action, though the attack triggers obligations of notice and consultation with Congress.
I am sympathetic to those who criticize the failure to seek declarations of war from Congress before carrying out such operations. Indeed, I have represented members of Congress in opposing such wars. We lost. The courts have allowed presidents to order such attacks unilaterally.
Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution 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.” However, the Constitution also expressly states that Congress has the power to declare war under Article I, Section 8, Clause 11.
Our last declared war was World War II. Since that time, Congress and the courts have allowed for resolutions to supplant the declaration requirement. They have also allowed for unilateral attacks on other nations.
President Trump has referred to this action as a “war” and said that it will not be a limited operation.
The attack will result in calls for compliance with the War Powers Resolution, passed by Congress in 1973.
The resolution requires “in the absence of a declaration of war” that a president report to Congress within 48 hours after introducing United States military forces into hostilities. The WPR mandates that operations must end within 60 days absent congressional approval.
Notably, there was a recent secret briefing of the “Gang of Eight” that may have included a foreshadowing of this operation. Secretary of State Marco Rubio confirmed on Saturday that he has given notice to those senators.
Under the WPR:
“The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.”
The WPR limits such authority to “hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances,” and can be exercised “only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.”
President Trump has cited the documented attacks of Iran and its proxies on U.S. forces and its allies. It is also a state sponsor of terrorism and has continued to seek nuclear weapons in defiance of the demands of the international community. Recently, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) announced that Iran had again barred it from these sites.
There has historically been deference to presidents exercising such judgments under this vague standard. That was certainly the case with the attacks in Bosnia and Libya under Democratic presidents.
Even with the highly deferential language, presidents have long chaffed at the limitations of WPR. Nixon’s veto of the legislation was overridden. Past Democratic and Republican presidents, including Obama, have asserted their inherent authority under Article II to carry out such operations.
There is always a fair amount of hypocrisy in these moments. There was no widespread outcry when Obama attacked Libya, particularly from Democrats. When I represented members to challenge the undeclared war in Libya, Obama (like Trump) dismissed any need to get congressional approval in attacking the capital city of a foreign nation and military sites to force regime change. Figures like then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were lionized for their tough action in Libya.
Recently, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) sponsored a resolution to bar President Donald Trump from taking military action in Iran without congressional approval. Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) proposed a similar resolution. Neither was passed.
Critics can also rely on Authorizations for the Use of Military Force (AUMFs) to assert limits on the president when authorizing limited, defined military actions. Such resolutions date back to the Adams Administration in the Quasi-War with France.
A 2001 AUMF authorized the President “to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.” It also authorized presidents to take military action to prevent future acts of terrorism against the United States.
The 2002 AUMF authorizes the President to use “necessary and appropriate” force to “defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.” Past presidents have interpreted these AUMFs to extend to new threats and beyond countries like Iraq.
In a 2018 report, the Trump Administration declared that the 2002 AUMF “contains no geographic limitation on where authorized force may be employed.”
Obama, Biden, and Trump have cited the 2002 AUMF as supporting past attacks in Syria. The Biden attacks included targets in Iraq and Yemen. Trump also cited the 2002 AUMF in taking out Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani, the leader of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) Quds Force.
President Biden’s reliance on the 2002 AUMF (and the 2001 AUMF) for “necessary and proportionate” attacks was ironic since he previously supported rescinding the 2002 AUMF.
The Administration is likely to continue to consult with Congress in light of these attacks. Sixty days is an ample initial period for the prosecution of Operation Epic Fury, particularly given the Administration’s disinclination to commit ground troops.
Congress can seek to bar or limit operations in the coming days. Given the fluid events, many members are likely to wait to watch the initial results and, frankly, the polling on the attacks. However, these operations could take days or even weeks. The longer the operation continues, the calls for congressional action will likely increase.
As an initial matter, however, Trump is using authority that prior presidents, including Democratic presidents, have cited in carrying out major attacks on other countries. History and prior precedent are on his side in carrying out these initial attacks.
THIS IS A WAR FOUGHT FOR ISRAEL & ZIONISTS & THE PROJECT OF “GREATER ISRAEL”. THE AIPAC CONTROLS THE FOREIGN POLICY OF THE USA. 70% OF THE AMERICANS ARE AGAINST IT.
Re:” This is a war fought for Israel and Zionist”. …
One can find the Jew haters in every crowd. To find them In this one is no surprise. The Jewish Community can boast 23% of the Nobel Prizes awarded. Within and without of those what it has contributed to the good and welfare of the human condition, no antisemite should be the beneficiary of. But they are, not withstanding. They would have it all swept away with a stroke. The Jewish community was here before you, it is here now, and it will be long after your wretched bones have turned to dust.
After Trump is done ruining the world and making things worse, why shouldn’t his supporters and enablers be guillotined?
Sometimes you have to use force when you are raping little girls.
The other countries of the world are just pussies to grab.
It’s all about dominating and violating, on the micro and macro levels.
China! The Trump administration has told us that its foreign policy is oriented ultimately to meeting the geo-strategic challenge from China in collaboration with Russia. Iran is an important chess piece in our emerging “Great Game” with China.
China buys some 90% of Iran’s oil exports, which comprise over 10% of China’s oil imports. China supports Iran’s ballistic missile program. Russia has supported Iran’s nuclear program while purchasing Iranian military drones for use in Ukraine.
Iran has supported militia proxies — Hamas, Hezbollah and Houthis — including with short range and mid range missiles. The Houthis used these capabilities to close the Red Sea, Bab-el-Mandeb and Suez Canal to commercial traffic. Some 12% of global trade traverses the Suez Canal, as well as 15% of Europe’s maritime trade with Asia.
Around one-quarter to one-third of global oil trade passes through the Strait of Hormuz, mostly destined for Asia — India, China, Japan and South Korea. Iran has threatened and disrupted oil traffic in the Strait; it seized an oil tanker in the Strait as recently as November 2025.
President Xi Jingping has vowed repeatedly that Taiwan will be “reunified” with the PRC by 2027, and has directed the PLA to prepare. He has executed repeated purges of the PLA leadership in recent years. China has been stockpiling oil for years, along with critical minerals and more recently gold.
Presidents Xi and Putin of Russia have vowed to supplant “American hegemony” with a “new world order” dominated by China and Russia. They have committed to replacing the US dollar as the world’s reserve currency, including the roughly 80% of global oil trade that is denominated in dollars. That may explain why the Chinese central bank is buying so much gold.
Let’s assume Xi keeps his promise and blockades Taiwan by 2027. And that the Trump administration had followed the past 50 years of American governments by kicking the Iran problem down the road for some future administration to confront.
The United States likely would try to marshal forces into the region to confront the blockade and at least resist further Chinese expansion along the First Island Chain (Philippines, Taiwan, Japan). If the Iran problem is not settled to our advantage, China could encourage and support Iran in its pursuit of Iran’s long held ambitions toward regional (Shia) domination and destruction of Israel. Iran could close the Strait of Hormuz to choke off oil to our western Pacific allies, Japan and South Korea, as well as India, throwing them into economic crisis. Iran could through their Houthi allies again close the Suez Canal, and cut off oil and trade to Europe, throwing Europe into economic crisis. An Iranian gambit would strengthen China’s position by occupying our attention and more importantly distracting our resources away from confronting the Taiwan challenge, not to mention distracting and weakening our allies.
If Iran is “defanged” in Operation Epic Fury, that important strategic option can be removed from China’s arsenal. We cannot properly understand our current Iran policy without placing it in the context of our geo-strategic competition with China.
The U.S. is no competition to China. China is the Producer the U.S. is the Consumer.
We can not ‘compete’ with China. What very little advantages we may have will be swallowed by China as it is realized.
The U.S. plus all it’s Allies would not be enough to bring China to its knees. Further geo-strategic Allies know they do not want a conflict with China.
(I take it you are not old enough to know about the experience of Vietnam first hand, and Iraq was no different – you don’t want to go there.)
CHINA AS TOAST
AI Overview
China’s population problem is severe and arguably “terminal” in terms of reversing to previous growth levels, with the country facing a rapid, historic decline. The population has begun a long-term, accelerating contraction, with projections showing a potential drop from 1.4 billion to 633 million by 2100. This aging, shrinking demographic creates a massive economic crisis, threatening to leave China with insufficient workers and an overburdened pension system.
Key Aspects of the Demographic Crisis:
Irreversible Decline: Following decades of the one-child policy, fertility rates are well below replacement level (1.09-1.16), leading to consecutive years of overall population shrinkage, a trend described as nearly unstoppable.
Rapid Aging: The number of elderly people is rising as the workforce shrinks, with 30% of the population expected to be over 60 by 2034.
Economic Impact: The working-age population (16–59) is shrinking, which threatens long-term economic growth and poses a risk to the pension system, which could run out of money by 2035.
Unprecedented Scope: The projected population drop is considered unprecedented in modern history, with a potential loss of over 200 million people between 2024 and 2054.
Failed Interventions: Despite relaxing policies to three children and introducing incentives, the birth rate continues to fall, with fewer people choosing to marry or have children.
While the population decline is likely permanent, the “terminal” nature refers to the end of China’s era of rapid growth and demographic dividend, forcing a shift to a new, smaller-scale economic model.
“It’s the [demographics], stupid!”
– Saint James Carville
Turley has no credibility on anything he writes as long as he keeps blowing a child rapist.
What child was that?
I have never seen or heard of any allegations of him raping a child,- even in relation to redacted Epstein files.
You haven’t seen the reports because Trump ordered Pammie Jo to hide them–but such reports DO exist, as intrepid reporters discovered when they compared the Bates-stamped numbers on documents released by Pammie Jo with the Bates-stamped numbers on documents the DOJ was required to disclose to Ghislaine Maxwell’s attorney in her criminal prosecution. According to reporters from The Guardian, who have seen the reports, the FBI interviewed the victim, age 13 at the time, several times, so they obviously took seriously what she was alleging–but nothing was done about it She related that Trump tried to force her to perform oral sex, and she bit him. He punched her in the head and threw her out. While her divorce was pending, and before she settled with Trump and agreed to a NDA and tried to recant her sworn testimony, Ivana said, under oath, that Trump raped her and pulled out hanks of her hair when he was suffering pain as a result of scalp-reduction surgery to correct baldness. He didn’t think she was sympathetic enough to his discomfort and blamed her for referring him to a plastic surgeon she had used. Then, there’s E. Jean Carroll, who has a judgment against Trump for sexually assaulting her. And, there’s the Access Hollywood tapes and bragging about grabbing women by their genitals. There are other women who have accused Trump of sexual assault, too. Trump was best friends with Epstein for years, and alluded, in writing, to “wonderful secrets” and that Epstein “loved beautiful women” as much as he did but some of them were “on the younger side”. But, are Republicans deposing Trump? Nope. They’re deposing Hillary Clinton, who never even met Epstein. They didn’t bother to show up for Les Wexler’s deposition, and there wouldn’t even have been a Lolita Island or the various mansions and homes of Epstein without Wexler’s money.
If you understand malignant narcissism, then it’s clear why Trump started a war with Iran right before Congress was set to vote on a measure that he could not do this (scheduled for next week) and the early midterm primaries in Texas in which Trump’s anointed candidates might lose. This poorly-planned invasion, despite claims during the campaign that he would not start any more wars, and despite claims that diplomacy was being carried out, and despite the fact that Iran said it would agree to another deal just like (or maybe better than the one with Obama, so Trump could save face) came on the heels of a disasterous lie-filled SOTU performance and expanding bipartisan calls for release of the files related to the 13 year old’s allegations. The reasons are clear if you understand Trump’s narcissism and lack of altruism and patriotism: It’s all about diversion, the ego and fear of losing power. He also has to look tough and intimidating–as in the huge banners installed on several federal buildings. There’s also the need to pay back those wealthy Jews who gave Trump hundreds of millions of dollars so that the US would use our miitary and assets help Israel wage war against its Arab neighbors, all before November comes and Republicans lose control. Miriam Edelson alone gave him $100 million. Now, the Straits of Hormuz are closed to traffic and the cost of gas is poised to go up. Over 200 people have been killed that are known of so far–but why?
We had a nuclear deal with Iran, brokered by Obama that involved inspections to reassure us that nuclear material was not being enriched for weapons purposes. Trump tore it up because it was Obama’s deal. Then, he claimed that he “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear enrichment program, which turns out to be another big, fat lie. There is absolutely NO American interest being served by this war. Someone told Trump that voters wouldn’t vote out a president during a war. Now, our brave service members, as well as American tourists and those who work in the Middle East are in danger. It’s all about Trump’s massive ego and the fact that he is poised to lose power in less than a year.
Lin,
It is another Blue Anon conspiracy theory/hoax leftists keep pushing. As usual, they make wild claims with no evidence to back it up. That is why they always post as anonymous, never provide links or any substantive evidence.
The 12 year old Posts Again all that stomping is going to crack the flooring.
So just how do you explain that there has been no declared war since WW II and we have had war with Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Kuwait, the war on terror on and on. Instead of just calling names site some authority for your position.
Weren’t all the “victims” prostitutes that were paid to come to the island? I assume they were well paid. If they were underaged, that’s bad, but it’s not unheard of. Didn’t they fly there on Epstein’s G5? Were they confused about why they were invited there? Did they think they won a raffle or attending a CLE conference? If they were raped, why didn’t they file criminal charges against any of the well known people involved after it happened? Even if the charges didn’t go anywhere, there would have been civil payouts made. Seems odd that those things didn’t happen.
BAN FOR LIFE!
I offer no opinion. I simply cite two facts:
–Trump is using the same justification/exceptions (including UN position) to WPA authority as Obama and others used. I go into more detail in my earlier comment today.
—Under WPA/WPR, 50 U.S.C. 1543 (a)
(emphases mine)
“”IN THE ABSENCE OF A DECLARATION OF WAR, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced—
(1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;
(2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or
(3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation;
the President shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth—
(A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;
(B) the constitutional and legislative authority
(C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.”
Under Section 1544, after such receipt (3) ^ from the Executive, Congress has 60 days to (1)declare war, or (2) authorize the use or (3) termination of the use of US. armed forces, or (4) extend for another 30 days.
Trump: The lives of American heroes may be lost, and we may have casualties — that often happens in war.
*only the spineless congress refuses to call it a war .. . much less move to stop it.
Congress has provided consent, allowed by omission, and deliberately did not move to stop it.
Just like it did regarding the tariffs.
Congress can’t reach a consensus on the necessary appropriations:
As of late February 2026, a partial U.S. government shutdown is occurring because Congress failed to pass all necessary appropriations bills to fund federal departments, specifically due to a deadlocked dispute over Department of Homeland Security (DHS) funding
https://www.whitehouse.gov/government-shutdown-clock/
What is it the makes you think Congress can pass a War Act with anymore expedience? (Seriously, this would take well more than a Month is at all).
Let me know when conscription begins. Is the president utilizing the regular forces?
Here we go ☺.
Don’t over-react, Conscription (The Draft) only begins after Congress declares a War, and the stock of Volunteer Active Military personnel have been reduced to Reserve levels and Congress approves the Draft to activate.
“Let me know when conscription begins ☺” You don’t have to wait to be Drafted, you could join today! 🫡🪖
Why is Turley such a sycophant for a child rapist?
You could be exposed to arrest, or lawsuit, for declaring it a proven fact. And the Professor carries water for no one
Trump is subject to arrest for raping little girls.
Has anyone credibly accused him of this, that would be no.
BAN FOR LIFE!
Iran tried to interfere in 2020, 2024 elections to stop Trump, and now faces renewed war with U.S.
https://justthenews.com/government/security/iranians-tried-interfere-2020-and-2024-stop-trump-iran-now-faces-possible-war
Reports of Iranians cheering the strikes.
Why is Iran our war but Ukraine is not?
Have any Russians been heard screaming “Death to America”. Islamic radicals want the USA to disappear
Radical Russian propagandists have pretty much been doing the same, so my answer is yes.
Religious Zealotry (the end to non-believers).
Turley’s point is that presidents have been allowed to initiate strikes and then trigger War Powers notice and consultation. One driver is practical: you cannot keep operational surprise if you have to pre-brief a leaky legislature.
Nothing you wrote is true. No president has been “allowed” to violate the WPA and Constitution. They just did without penalty. That is not giving permission. The Constitution is clear that the president can not declare war. Nothing “triggers it”. Trump did brief the Gang of 8 and they did not leak. Getting Congressional authorization is not a “pre-brief” and it is an open vote. Also the desire for secrecy dose not over ride the Constitution. And on top of all that the whole world knew the attack was coming.
Putting that many lies into such few words is a MAGA skill.
You’re arguing what should happen. I’m talking about what has actually happened.
Presidents of both parties have launched strikes without declarations, Congress funded them, and the courts didn’t stop them. That’s not me cheering it. That’s reality.
No one said the President can declare war. The question is whether limited strikes equal a declared war under the Constitution. That’s been debated since the 1790s.
You can think the practice is wrong. But pretending it hasn’t been tolerated for decades doesn’t make it disappear.
The ‘practice’ is clearly un-constitutional .. . and more’s the pity.
*If Joe Biden had launched Operation Epic Fury, I suspect you would be Apocalyptic. .. and for good reason.
If you think the practice is unconstitutional, that’s a fair argument. But it’s not a new practice, and it didn’t start with Trump. Presidents of both parties have relied on the same post–World War II framework. If it’s unconstitutional, then it’s been unconstitutional across administrations.
And no, my position wouldn’t change based on the name in the Oval Office. The structural question is the same whether it’s Biden, Trump, Obama, or Bush. Either the modern war powers framework has drifted from the original design, or it hasn’t. That debate shouldn’t depend on the jersey.
The rules seem to be applied differently for Trump. In the past, President’s have had complete control over classified documents. Every other President has enjoyed that power, and at least one former also VP did, so did a Sec of State, and several senators, but apparently not Trump.
What we enjoy about this Blog is that it allows thoughts to be shared nearly universally, little to no censorship