New Delhi: Democrats as well as ultraconservative Republicans—who form the two ends of the American political system—have found common ground in their opposition to President Donald Trump’s move to strike Iranian nuclear facilities, with some calling the military action an “impeachable offence”.
The pushback from lawmakers, which includes House Representatives Thomas Massie (Republican) and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (Democratic), revolves around the powers of the US president to carry out military strikes against another country.
In the early hours of Sunday, the US carried out a series of strikes against three Iranian nuclear facilities in an attempt to end its nuclear programme. While it dropped six 30,000-tonne bunker bombs on the underground, heavily fortified Fordow site, it hit Natanz and Isfahan with 30 Tomahawk missiles. At least two bunker bombs were also dropped on Natanz.
“This is not about the merits of Iran’s nuclear programme. No president has the authority to bomb another country that does not pose an imminent threat to the US without the approval of Congress. This is an unambiguous impeachable offence,” Democratic Representative Sean Casten said in a statement on X.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, a Democrat, also referred to the remit of the US Congress to authorise military action in his statement. This is also the argument raised by ultraconservative Republicans.
In the US, the declaration of war and the use of military force are outlined under various provisions of the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution of 1973. They also define the scope of the powers of the executive branch and the legislative branch.
War vs use of military force
According to the US Constitution (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11), the power to declare war rests with Congress. However, Article 2 (Section 2, Clause 1) also says the president is the commander-in-chief of the US military—similar to how it is in India.
Under Article 1, Section 8, clauses 11 to 13, the Congress has powers to “declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy.”
However, throughout US history, Congress has formally declared war only eleven times, the last being against Romania on 4 June, 1942, during World War II.
Eight of the eleven official declarations occurred in the 20th century—two during World War I and six during World War II.
In December 1941, the US first declared war on Japan, Germany and Italy, and then on Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania in June 1942. During World War I, the American Congress voted to declare war against Germany and Austria-Hungary in 1917.
The other declarations were against Great Britain (1812), Mexico (1846) and Spain (1898).
But that does not mean the US has not conducted military action since. Among others, it was involved in the Korean War (1950s), Vietnam (1950s-1970s), the Gulf War (1990s), and has also carried out invasions, like in Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2002.
In those conflicts, the president used the legislation for the authorisation of military force (AUMF), which is different from a formal declaration of war. One of the earliest authorisations for the use of military force was in 1798, when ties between the US and France had deteriorated.
President John Adams sought the Congress to authorise the use of force to protect its shipping vessels, which were being seized by the French, and it did.
The use of the AUMF significantly expanded after the end of World War 2. In 1950, the US, under the aegis of the United Nations Security Council, sent in troops to the Korean peninsula. Then president Harry Truman declared the operation a “police action” under the UNSC and did not seek Congressional authorisation.
This was an inflection point on who has the power to declare war within the branches of the US government.
In 1964, the US under President Lyndon B. Johnson stepped up intervention in Southeast Asia through the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. The resolution authorised Johnson to “take all necessary measures” to prevent further aggression.
This set the stage for the prosecution of the Vietnam War under the Johnson presidency and his successor, Richard Nixon. However, backlash to this move brought about the War Powers Resolution, which was an attempt to curb the growing powers of the presidency with regard to military action.
In recent years, the US Congress passed resolutions for the use of military force in Afghanistan and Iraq. The 2001 resolution was pathbreaking as it allowed the US to take action against any organisation and person linked to the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks. Every American president since has derived the legal legitimacy for their handling of the American war on terror from these two resolutions.
War Powers Resolution
The War Powers Resolution came about as a result of frustrations within Congress over Nixon’s expansion of the Vietnam War, with secret bombings over Cambodia ordered by the White House without Congressional authorisation.
While Nixon vetoed the bill, Congress overrode his veto and passed it again, with it coming into effect following America’s withdrawal from Vietnam in 1973.
The act says the president “in every possible instance shall consult with Congress” before introducing the American military into “any hostilities”.
Furthermore, the resolution states that the president “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” the circumstances necessitating the use of the American military.
At a press conference Sunday, hours after the US strikes, Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth confirmed that the US Congress had been notified of the attacks after US aircraft had left Iranian airspace, which was within the 48-hour window.
Section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution makes it clear that without further authorisation for the use of force by the Congress, the president, within sixty days, shall “terminate” the use of the US Armed Forces in the military action under question.
The resolution allows a thirty-day extension in the event that “the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity” led to the delay of the termination of military action.
US leaders—including Vice President J.D. Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio—have indicated there are no more planned military actions after Sunday’s strikes. However, they have promised retaliatory attacks in the event that US interests in the region are harmed by Iran.
Trump is not the first President in recent history to strike first and notify Congress later. In March 2011, President Barack Obama authorised the US military to intervene in Libya, informing Congress within the 48-hour period. At the time, a number of Republican leaders had called the intervention unconstitutional.
(Edited by Sanya Mathur)
Also Read: How escalation in Iran-Israel tensions could hit Indian govt’s ongoing Chabahar port expansion work