No Emergency, No Excuse: Why Trump’s Strike on Iran Violated the U.S. Constitution and is Illegal
Large-scale, preemptive actions, like bombing sovereign nuclear sites or launching cruise missiles, go far beyond what the War Powers Resolution allows without congressional approval. Trump’s strike on Iran wasn’t limited or defensive, it was an offensive act of war that clearly required a new Authorization for Use of Military Force from Congress.
I believe what Trump did this weekend wasn’t just reckless, it was illegal, plain and simple. He blew past the Constitution, avoided working with Congress, and acted like the law didn’t apply to him.
There was no emergency. No surprise intel. No sudden threat. Iran’s nuclear activity has been on the radar for decades. We’ve known. Israel’s known. The world has known. Nothing changed, except that Trump wanted to look tough. That’s not leadership. That’s a power grab. And when a president drops bombs without proper cause or approval, we’re not just in a political crisis, we’re in a constitutional one.
The legal standards that Trump ignored
Under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, only Congress may declare war. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. §§ 1541–1548) says explicitly that absent a formal declaration, the president must notify Congress within 48 hours of any military engagement (§ 1543(a)) and dismantle that engagement within 60 days unless Congress authorizes it (§ 1544(b)) .
Title 10 U.S.C. § 130f further requires the Secretary of Defense to provide written notice to defense committees within 48 hours of any sensitive military operation.
No AUMF covered this
Trump’s team lacks any genuine Authorization for Use of Military Force—a statute passed by Congress—authorizing strikes in Iran. The 2001 and 2002 AUMFs don’t apply to Iran.
Even the serious concerns about Iran’s nuclear program predate this administration by decades. Those concerns don’t carry the legal weight to bypass Congress.
Legal experts have made it clear: without a brand‑new AUMF tailored explicitly to Iran, triggered by new intelligence showing a nuclear breakout, this action has no lawful basis
No emergency existed
Last week Secretary of State Rubio made it clear that the U.S. was not involved in Israel’s strike on Iran’s nuclear sites, emphasizing that those sites were under long‑standing scrutiny, not fresh targets of new intelligence or sudden threat.
Meanwhile Tulsi Gabbard, the Director of National Intelligence, testified in March that Iran was not building a nuclear weapon and that Supreme Leader Khamenei had not authorized one since 2003, yet just days ago Trump publicly dismissed her entire intelligence assessment, saying “I don’t care what she said. I think they were very close”. The White House then shifted, claiming Iran “could produce a nuclear weapon in a couple of weeks”, a stark departure from verifiable intel.
So there was no sudden escalation, no breaking intel, no looming threat, just a strike ordered on June 21, 2025 against facilities that have been on international radars for decades. If that doesn’t require congressional oversight, what ever would achieve that bar?
What Trump Might Claim
Claim 1: “I acted to protect national security. Iran was close to a nuclear breakout.”
This is the headline Trump will push, but it crumbles under the facts. Just days before the strike, Secretary of State Marco Rubio publicly stated the U.S. had no involvement in Israeli actions and acknowledged there was no imminent threat. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard told Congress Iran was not producing a nuclear weapon, and that there was no authorization from Iran’s Supreme Leader to pursue one. Trump dismissed those assessments without evidence. And when a president claims "new intel" but refuses to share it with Congress, it’s not national security, it’s cover. You don’t get to override the Constitution because you think you know better than the law.
Claim 2: “This was a defensive action, not an act of war.”
Dropping 30,000-pound Massive Ordnance Penetrators on three sovereign nuclear sites and launching 30 Tomahawk cruise missiles is not defensive. It’s not restraint. It’s a full-scale military strike against a nation we are not at war with. That’s war. And the Constitution doesn’t let one man unilaterally wage it without Congress saying yes. Trump can’t downplay the scale of what he just did, it involved stealth bombers, submarines, and targeted destruction across multiple locations. This wasn't defense. This was an offensive operation by every legal and moral standard we have.
Claim 3: “Article II gives me the power as Commander in Chief to act.”
Wrong. Article II allows the president to direct the military, but it does not allow him to declare war. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 was created for this exact reason: to stop presidents from bypassing Congress. It says clearly—50 U.S.C. § 1541—that the president can only introduce U.S. Armed Forces into hostilities if Congress declares war, issues a specific statutory authorization, or there is a national emergency created by an attack upon the United States. None of those conditions existed here. No attack. No declaration. No authorization. No excuse.
Claim 4: “This was based on new, classified intelligence.”
That didn’t happen. And when your own intelligence chief is telling Congress under oath that Iran isn't building a bomb, the burden is on you to prove why you're going against that assessment. If you can’t disclose what changed, or if nothing actually did, your claim falls apart. “Classified” can’t be used as a shield for unchecked power.
Claim 5: “Congress is too slow and divided. I had to act.”
That’s not how democracy works. We don’t hand the nuclear keys to one man because Congress debates too much. In fact, debate is the point. That’s why we have hearings. That’s why we require authorization. It forces facts into the open and prevents one person from dragging the country into war based on politics, ego, or misdirection. If Trump believed the threat was real, he could have made his case to Congress, to the American people, and to our allies. He didn’t. That’s not leadership. That’s lawlessness.
Every one of Trump’s likely justifications for this strike falls apart when you shine a light on it. No imminent threat. No new intel. No legal authority. No congressional approval. And no excuse for cutting out the American people and their elected representatives.
What happened Saturday night wasn’t a bold national security decision. It was a breach of power, and it demands a response.
What Trump should have done
First he should have sought a new, narrowly written AUMF from Congress. That vote would have allowed open debate, forced the administration to present fresh evidence, and set clear limits, geography, time, targets, all overseen by Congress.
Second he should have contacted and worked with Congress under War Powers Resolution to discuss, advise and build unity before attacking another country.
Third he should have ensured compliance with 10 U.S.C. § 130f by notifying defense committees about the so‑called “sensitive operations,” which he obviously dodged.
Why Did Trump Really Order the Bombing?
In my opinion, Trump didn’t order tonight’s bombing of Iran because of a sudden national security emergency. He did it because he wanted a distraction, a political wedge, and a rallying cry.
There are no new facts or intelligence breakthroughs that justify immediate military action. Iran’s nuclear ambitions have been monitored for decades, with no indication of an imminent threat. As recently as last week, Trump’s own Secretary of State and other officials publicly admitted that Iran is not near building a nuclear weapon. So what changed? Nothing, except maybe Trump’s poll numbers, press coverage, or desire to look strong.
This strike, to me, reeks of political desperation. Trump thrives in chaos. He always has. When the headlines aren’t going his way, whether it’s investigations into his immigration policies, the backlash from his latest authoritarian move, or internal fractures within his party, he shifts the national conversation by force. That usually means spectacle. And few spectacles are louder than a bombing run on foreign soil.
I also believe this was about power and image. Trump sees the presidency as a stage, not a responsibility. Tonight’s bombing gives him tough-guy optics. It lets him appear decisive, even as the decision bypassed the very institutions that make America a democracy, Congress, the people, the law. It lets him wave a flag while dodging scrutiny.
And let’s not ignore the psychological dynamics. I’ve studied enough about narcissistic behavior, grandiosity, and authoritarian leadership to recognize a pattern: when control is threatened, the response is dominance. This bombing was not strategic. It was performative. It was driven by ego, not evidence.
There’s also a geopolitical angle. Trump’s relationship with Israel has always been transactional and image-driven. He may be trying to curry favor with Netanyahu’s government, signal alignment with hardline factions, or create a flashpoint that forces other countries to react on his terms. But that’s not how responsible leadership works. That’s how dictators behave.
Why this matters to everyday Americans
This isn’t about politics. It’s about power, and whether one man gets to use it without answering to the rest of us. When Trump bombs another country without a shred of approval from Congress, he’s not just skipping a step, he’s shutting the American people out of the process. Your voice, your vote, your representation in this decision? Gone.
And if we let him do it once, it won’t stop there. What’s to keep him, or the next president from waking up angry, launching missiles, and calling it “leadership”? Congress is supposed to be the brakes. If they don’t pull them now, we’re speeding straight into a future where war is just another campaign stunt.
That should terrify every single American, because next time, it could cost lives, more money, and more of our democracy.
What must happen now
Congress can’t just shrug this off and move on. They have a duty to act, and I mean right now. The War Powers Resolution exists for moments exactly like this. They need to demand an immediate, public briefing from the White House. No backroom summaries. No vague press statements. The American people deserve to know why this happened and whether it was even legal.
If Trump can’t justify this strike with solid intelligence or a legitimate threat, Congress must force a rollback. They can pass a resolution ordering a stoppage of all military aggression. They can demand a retroactive Authorization for Use of Military Force, but only if the facts actually support one. And if not? Then it’s time for real consequences.
Congress must hold hearings, under oath, with Trump’s advisors, his Secretary of Defense, his intelligence briefers—everyone. And they better ask the hard questions. What new information did the president rely on? Why wasn’t Congress notified? Who signed off on this? Who pushed back?
And if this all comes down to political theater, personal ego, or a grab for headlines, then we’ve crossed a dangerous line. That’s when the word impeachment stops being theoretical and starts becoming necessary.
Because if a president can bomb another nation without a shred of new intel, without emergency circumstances, and without so much as a phone call to Congress, then the system is broken. And if Congress doesn’t act, they become part of the problem.
Conclusion
In my view this strike is not just unconstitutional, it chips away at the trust between citizens and government power. There was no urgency, no new intelligence, no emergency. There was only a president sidestepping the law, ignoring Congress, and trampling on the Constitution.
I believe the American people deserve better. We need our lawmakers to step up now, demand accountability, and ensure that never again will a president launch a war without our representatives speaking first.
Mitch Jackson, Esq. | links
Related
“What Happens Next?” (Trump’s strike on Iran will set off a global chain reaction—missiles, cyberattacks, oil shocks, and new alliances against us. Every American is now at risk.)
You’re already in this fight. That matters more than you know.
If you’re ready to double down:
Back this work with a monthly, annual, or Founding Membership—get direct access and real talk. Gift a subscription to someone who refuses to be lied to.
BTW, prices go up later this week. These lower premium options will be grandfathered in for anyone who takes advantage of them. See the details here.
You can believe two things at once.
I do.
I don’t want Iran to have nuclear weapons. Eliminating that threat matters.
But the end doesn't justify the means.
Trump didn’t just “act tough.” He bypassed Congress, violated the Constitution, and launched a major strike without legal authority.
No, I don’t expect accountability from a MAGA-led Congress. But this kind of unilateral military action cannot become the new norm. We need real guardrails. Now.
And let’s be clear, this isn’t over. The risk of retaliation against American soldiers and civilians is
very real.
We deserve better leadership. In fact, the Constitution demands it.