By Gloria Ogbonna
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), once known for proudly proclaiming himself Israel’s “guardian” in Congress, came under fire Saturday night after releasing a delayed and critical statement opposing President Donald Trump’s recent airstrike targeting Iran’s nuclear sites.
While lawmakers from both sides of the aisle responded swiftly to the high-stakes military development, Schumer remained silent for several hours before finally issuing a statement late in the evening.
In his remarks, the New York senator condemned the strikes and voiced support for legislation designed to curtail President Trump’s authority to take further military action without congressional approval.
Schumer’s remarks were echoed by several other Democrats, many of whom cited constitutional concerns regarding executive war powers.
This line of criticism mirrors the response Trump received in early 2020 following his successful strike that eliminated Iranian Quds Force commander Qasem Soleimani — a designated terrorist responsible for orchestrating numerous attacks against American personnel and allies.
Yet, critics point out a glaring double standard. While Democrats, including Schumer, have become increasingly vocal in their opposition to Republican-led military actions, they were far less concerned about constitutional limits when Democratic President Barack Obama launched similar — and in some cases, more expansive — military operations without Congressional approval.
A prime example is the 2011 Libya intervention. President Obama initiated the campaign without a formal declaration of war or authorization from Congress.
Even when his administration exceeded the 60-day reporting limit set by the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which requires the president to report to Congress when deploying U.S. armed forces into hostilities, few Democrats raised serious objections.
The Obama administration claimed the U.S. was not engaged in “hostilities” but merely “leading from behind,” a position legal scholars found dubious.
Perhaps most notably, former Yale Law School Dean Harold Koh — once a staunch advocate for congressional checks on presidential war powers — reversed his stance to defend Obama’s unilateral military actions.
The New York Times noted Koh’s transformation from a constitutional purist to a leading legal defender of Obama’s intervention in Libya, despite its obvious overreach.
When the Obama administration later contemplated airstrikes in Syria, it adopted a similarly unilateral tone. Despite previously criticizing the Iraq War for its lack of international consensus, Obama officials argued that strikes in Syria would be legitimate even without United Nations Security Council backing — primarily because Russia’s opposition rendered such consensus impossible. Once again, objections from congressional Democrats were minimal.
In contrast, when President Trump adheres to the same War Powers framework — ensuring that Congress is notified within the 60-day window — Democrats raise constitutional alarms. Their sudden concern for checks and balances seems politically selective, critics argue.
NEW — Schumer, a longtime Iran hawk, comes out against Trump’s strikes, accusing POTUS of “erratic threats and no strategy”
Also announces he’ll support a War Powers vote pic.twitter.com/3dAmMiCdSP
— Andrew Desiderio (@AndrewDesiderio) June 22, 2025
The current legislative effort to limit Trump’s powers, a bill introduced by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) with 43 Democratic co-sponsors, explicitly seeks to block the president from initiating war with Iran.
The move has been framed by its sponsors as a protective measure, but others view it as a partisan attempt to tie the president’s hands amid escalating threats in the Middle East.
Schumer’s shift has also drawn criticism from pro-Israel groups. Once lauded for his vocal support of the Jewish state — even drawing attention to the fact that “Shomer,” his surname, translates to “guardian” in Hebrew — Schumer has in recent years grown more hesitant in defending Israel.
He has publicly criticized the Israeli government and, according to critics, remained passive in the face of growing antisemitism on American college campuses.
Notably, while the Republican-led House of Representatives has held multiple hearings on the issue, Schumer has reportedly resisted similar efforts in the Senate.
For a man who once built his political brand on steadfast support for Israel and strong national defense, Schumer’s recent posture has raised questions about his consistency, motivations, and whether party politics have taken precedence over the principles he once championed.
Source Breitbart