Trump ordered the shot on Iran, but can he really declare war? What the law says as Dems and even GOP oppose another 'stupid war'

The United States on Saturday (Jun 21) officially entered the war in the Middle East as it bombed three nuclear sites inside Iran. Taking to his Truth Social profile, US President Donald Trump announced the strikes on Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan nuclear sites. He said that a "full payload of BOMBS was dropped on the primary site, Fordow". As per reports, this dramatic escalation of the Israel-Iran war was done by Trump without authorisation from the US Congress and the Pentagon. But did he have the authority to do so? Or did Trump overreach his authority as the POTUS?

The US strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities—ordered by President Donald Trump—have ignited a constitutional firestorm in Washington. The operation, called as 'Midnight Hammer', was executed with surgical precision but has left behind a trail of political and legal fallout. While some Republicans lauded the move as a bold show of strength, many Democrats—and even a few conservatives—are sounding the alarm, calling the strikes “unconstitutional,” “unauthorised,” and potentially “impeachable.”

As questions mount over the legality of Trump’s actions, so do concerns over their long-term consequences. Did Trump overstep his constitutional bounds? Was Congress bypassed? And what precedent does this set for future presidents?

Here’s a deep dive into the legality, authority, and political reverberations of Trump’s latest move against Iran—and what it means for American democracy and global stability.

Did Trump overstep his authority?

At the heart of the controversy lies a foundational question: who in the US government has the power to declare war?

The US Constitution grants Congress the sole authority to declare war (Article I), while the President, as Commander-in-Chief (Article II), can direct military operations. This delicate balance has often been tested—and Trump’s recent Iran strike has pushed it to the brink.

As per the US Constitution, the President of the United States, be it Trump or another, must go to Congress before declaring war on any nation. As per Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the US Constitution, “[The Congress shall have Power …] To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water…” However, it must be noted that the US Congress has not declared war in over 80 years – since World War II. Yet, the US has been part of many wars, including the Afghanistan War, officially known as Operation Enduring Freedom, which happens to be the longest war in US history (from 2001 to 2021).

Progressive Democrats, including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rep. Ro Khanna, have accused Trump of violating both the War Powers Resolution and the Constitution by failing to obtain Congressional approval before launching the strikes. “We need to vote on a War Powers Resolution to prevent America from being dragged into another endless war,” Khanna said. Ocasio-Cortez went further, calling the move “grounds for impeachment.”

Even some Republicans expressed concern. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), a known constitutional conservative, declared bluntly: “This is not Constitutional.” Trump’s defenders argue that the President acted within his authority to protect national security. The White House later said it had made “bipartisan courtesy calls” before the operation, but it’s clear no formal consultation or approval from Congress took place before the missiles launched.

Presidential authority & historical precedents

Presidents have long taken military action without prior Congressional approval—often citing urgent threats or previous authorisations. From Clinton’s airstrikes in Kosovo to Obama’s intervention in Libya and Trump’s own 2020 strike on Iranian General Qassem Soleimani, there is precedent for limited military actions conducted under executive authority.

Trump’s supporters, including House Speaker Mike Johnson, argue that “the imminent danger outweighed the time it would take for Congress to act.” Others point out that the President’s role as Commander-in-Chief does allow for defensive measures without a declaration of war.

But critics counter that the latest strike was not reactive or time-sensitive in the way previous emergency actions have been. Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA), a long-time advocate for reining in presidential war powers, labeled the operation “horrible judgment” and vowed to push for a War Powers Resolution to curtail further hostilities.

The broader concern is the erosion of Congressional oversight. If presidents continue acting unilaterally, critics warn, the legislative branch may become a mere spectator in matters of war and peace.

Republicans rally, Democrats rebuke

Among Republicans, the response has largely been supportive. Sen. Lindsey Graham called the strike “the right call,” while Rep. Mike Lawler praised it for neutralising the nuclear threat without declaring war. Former Trump officials and conservative think tanks framed the move as necessary to prevent a nuclear Iran.

However, the party isn’t monolithic. Isolationist voices like Rep. Massie questioned not just the constitutionality but the strategic wisdom of escalating conflict in the Middle East—especially when Trump's base had long opposed “forever wars.”

Meanwhile, Democrats, particularly progressives, have taken a sharply critical stance. Rep. Sean Casten (IL) and Sen. Bernie Sanders both labeled the action “grossly unconstitutional.” Casten even called it “an unambiguous impeachable offense.” DNC Chair Ken Martin added, “Americans overwhelmingly do not want to go to war. This is reckless.”

Interestingly, not all Democrats toed the same line. Sen. John Fetterman, known for his centrist pragmatism, said he supported the strike because “Iran cannot be allowed to have nuclear capabilities.” This shows how concerns over Iran’s ambitions cross party lines, even if agreement on Trump’s method is lacking.

Global and domestic consequences

The most immediate concern is regional escalation. Iran has vowed to retaliate, calling the strikes “criminal” and warning of “everlasting consequences.” The attack could reignite hostilities across the Middle East, where US forces remain vulnerable, and tensions with Iran-backed militias are already high.

Observers fear that a tit-for-tat spiral could destabilise the entire region—from the Strait of Hormuz to the Golan Heights. With Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria already embroiled in conflict, the addition of a direct US-Iran confrontation could prove catastrophic.

Diplomatic fallout

The strikes all but obliterate hopes of a diplomatic thaw with Iran. Trust, already frayed since Trump withdrew from the 2015 nuclear deal, is now likely beyond repair. Any backchannel or formal negotiations around nuclear containment are off the table for the foreseeable future.

Domestically, the strikes could boomerang. Public opinion has shifted against military adventurism, and any US casualties or drawn-out confrontation could sour voters. Already, Congressional Democrats are preparing legal challenges and legislative remedies. Sen. Kaine and Rep. Khanna have introduced measures to curtail Trump’s war-making powers, setting the stage for a renewed debate on the War Powers Resolution.

Most crucially, the strikes may set a precedent. If Congress fails to push back, future presidents—regardless of party—may feel emboldened to bypass legislative oversight in matters of war.

A defining moment

Trump’s decision to strike Iran has reawakened a fundamental constitutional question: where does presidential authority end, and Congressional oversight begin?

This moment may prove pivotal—not just for Trump, but for American democracy itself. The legal and political battles playing out in Washington will shape how war powers are exercised, contested, and understood for years to come. Whether Trump’s actions are ultimately vindicated or condemned, they have already triggered a reckoning—one that will define the limits of presidential power in an era of high-stakes global conflict.