Legal expert John Yoo argues that President Trump has constitutional authority to strike Iran independently, adding fuel to an ongoing debate in Congress over war powers and the roles of the executive and legislative branches in authorizing military actions. As lawmakers on both sides of the aisle debate their positions in the command chain, some argue they should have sole authority to authorize a strike or declare war, while others believe it lies within Trump’s purview if he wanted to join Israel’s bombing campaign against Iran.
With the potential for military escalation against Iran, the focus of the debate centers on constitutional interpretations regarding war powers. Yoo, who contributed to the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) that authorized the use of U.S. military forces against entities responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, argues that the president doesn’t require Congressional permission to engage in hostilities abroad. However, he also acknowledges the political importance of consulting Congress to present a united front against adversaries.
While the Constitution clearly assigns Congress the sole authority to declare war, Yoo contends that the framers of the Constitution did not intend for the president and Congress to act as two separate weapons officers needing simultaneous approval to use force. He highlights that the founders recognized the need for a swift and decisive executive response in defending the nation, contrasting with the deliberative nature of Congress.
Amid these legal and political debates, lawmakers have introduced resolutions seeking to require a vote and debate before any force is used against Iran, aiming to reinforce Congress’ constitutional authority. Yoo views these measures as politically driven and not constitutionally necessary, arguing that Congress’ real power over war lies in its ability to fund the military through the appropriations process.