Who Approves War- The Iran War Powers Fight -

American aircraft are striking targets in Iran alongside Israel. The operation has reignited a long-running question in Washington, who actually has the authority to start a war? The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, but for more than a century, American presidents have repeatedly sent troops into combat without a formal declaration and often without much resistance from Congress. The turning point that forced the country to confront that reality was Vietnam. The war dragged on for years under vague authority tied to the Gulf of Tonkin incident, and it exposed just how much power had accumulated in the presidency. Today, members of Congress, mostly Democrats, argue that President Trump exceeded his authority by joining Israel in targeting Iran. So the question is simple, did he? What is the War Powers Act? What authority do presidents actually have to send combat troops into harm's way? What is the role of Congress during conflicts? Is Trump legally justified in this operation? Hello, I'm Colin Heaton, former history professor, Army and Marine Corps veteran, and welcome to this episode of Forgotten History. Beginning of the toughest 26 days in Marine Corps history. 36th President of the United States died this afternoon. The Declare War Clause in the Constitution sits in Article I with Congress, while the Commander in Chief Clause sits in Article II with the President. The key constitutional text is short but powerful. Article I, Section 8 gives Congress power to declare war, while Article II, Section 2 says the President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States. The President commands the forces, but only both houses of Congress can declare war. Constitutional analysis from Congress notes that presidents have long claimed some independent authority to use force, especially to repel sudden attacks or protect U.S. persons, but that authority has always been contested, and Congress retains substantial power to restrict or authorize military action. The United States fought major undeclared wars in North Africa, Korea, and Vietnam. Troops were deployed and lives were lost without the formal declaration of war the Constitution seemed to require. By the 1960s, many critics believed the presidency had become something the founders feared, an office increasingly capable of making war first and asking questions later. But today, presidential power is being challenged. Before 1973, presidents were not under the War Powers Resolution's 48-hour reporting rule, because that law did not yet exist. So, for presidents before 1973, the real question is usually whether they introduced U.S. forces into conflict before getting congressional authorization or before formally informing Congress in a meaningful way. After 1973, the cleaner question is whether they used force first and then filed a War Powers Report within 48 hours. However, this argument arose in 1973 when Congress finally struck back. The result was the War Powers Act, better known as the War Powers Resolution, a law designed to stop presidents from dragging America into another endless war without the consent of the people's representatives. But there was one problem. The president, Richard N. Nixon, didn't want to be restrained, and presidents ever since have been finding ways around it. From the beginning, the Constitution divided war powers in a way that almost guaranteed conflict. Congress was given the power to declare war. The president was made commander-in-chief. That sounds balanced. In reality, it created a permanent gray area. Technically, a war cannot legally exist unless Congress votes to declare war, as in World War I and World War II. The Korean War was different. Truman justified it as a United Nations police action rather than a traditional war. The U.N. authorized military action in 1950. Many presidents have launched military operations without telling Congress, in a better to ask for forgiveness than ask for permission, when they deemed American security was at stake. There were many great examples of president, and three examples are Thomas Jefferson in 1801 sent naval forces into the First Barbary War after Tripoli declared war before any modern style notification regime existed. He then reported the situation to Congress afterward, and later sought broader authority. James K. Polk, on January 13, 1846 through April 1846, ordered General Zachary Taylor into the disputed Rio Grande area before Congress declared war on Mexico. And Congress declared war on May 13, 1846, after fighting had already begun. The aforementioned Harry S. Truman, in June 1950, committed U.S. air, naval, and then ground forces to the Korean War under U.N. auspices without first obtaining a declaration of war from Congress. But then there are other situations. Lyndon B. Johnson, in 1964, after reports of attacks in the Gulf of Tonkin, Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. In 1965, he deployed the first combat troops into Vietnam without any declaration of war. Gerald Ford, in May 1975, during the Mayaguez incident, ordered military action and then reported it to Congress under the War Powers Resolution. Contemporary analysis notes that he informed key leaders only after the decision was already in motion. Then there was Jimmy Carter, in April 1980, who authorized the Iran Hostage Rescue Mission, Operation Eagle Claw. Like other post-1973 presidents, he acted first and then reported to Congress. Ronald Reagan, in September 1982, deployed Marines to Lebanon and military forces were sent to Grenada the following month, and he then notified Congress. Justification was the Cuban invasion in Grenada and risk to American students, as well as the overthrow of an elected Democratic government. George H.W. Bush, from December 20th to 21st, 1989, launched Operation Just Cause to arrest Manuel Noriega and protect the lives of Americans in Panama, which had declared war against the USA. Congress was not consulted until after. Barack Obama, from March 19th to the 21st, 2011, joined the Libya operation on March 19th and reported to Congress on March 21st. The justification was protecting American diplomatic assets and civilians. President Donald Trump, in both 2017 and 2018, ordered the Syria missile strikes against ISIS, a legally declared terrorist organization threatening American and allied assets in the region. Joe Biden, on January 11th through 12th, 2024, and later from January through February 2024, ordered strikes against the Houthis in Yemen and then submitted war powers reports, including one on January 24th, 2024, and later follow-on notifications. After 1973, the pattern usually became use force, then file a war powers report within 48 hours. The law changed the paperwork more than it changed presidential behavior, but those questions were never fully settled, and over time, presidents pushed further and further. Nixon had argued that the law was unconstitutional, and he vetoed it. He claimed it would weaken the presidency and limit the commander-in-chief's ability to respond to crises. Congress was not impressed, and on November 7th, 1973, in a rare and dramatic move, Congress overrode Nixon's veto and made the war powers resolution law. This was not Congress politely asking for more consultation. This was Congress openly rebuking the president and trying to reclaim power it believed had slipped away for decades. The war powers resolution tried to create rules where before there had been ambiguity. First, it required the president to consult with Congress before introducing U.S. armed forces into hostilities or into situations where hostilities seemed imminent whenever possible. Second, once troops were introduced, the president had to report to Congress within 48 hours. Third, unless Congress gave authorization, the use of force had to end within 60 days with a possible 30-day extension for withdrawal. That was supposed to be the safeguard. No more blank checks, no more endless wars lost by executive momentum, no more pretending Congress had meaningful control when it really didn't. At least, that was the theory, but the war powers resolution had a fatal weakness and never fully solved the problem. As a result, presidents of both parties have routinely challenged it, sidestepped it, or treated it as a political inconvenience rather than a binding command. Some presidents argued that parts of it were unconstitutional from the start. Others claimed that certain military operations, such as rescues and interventions, did not count as hostilities, so the law's clock never really started. Presidents and their lawyers often found ways to argue that what looked like war was not technically war, or at least not the kind that triggered the law in full. And Congress, for all its outrage, often lacked the political will to force a showdown. That's the dirty little secret at the heart of the War Powers Act, as it gave Congress tools, but Congress did not always use them. A short time ago, the United States military began major combat operations in Iran. President Donald Trump launched U.S. forces against Iran, citing a long list of reasons to justify his actions. In fact, his list has more merit than most other presidents in history. But, as expected, Democrats say he has gone beyond defensive action without adequate congressional authorization or a convincing public showing of imminent threat. That argument intensified after the Senate rejected a Democratic-led war powers resolution on March 18, 2026, which would have tried to limit further military action against Iran without Congress. The vote was 53-47, with Rand Paul the only Republican to back it and John Fetterman voting against it. Democrats are arguing that Trump is stretching presidential war powers too far, especially as operations broaden and the risk of deeper U.S. involvement rises. The Senate vote matters because it shows Democrats tried to impose a check and failed, leaving Trump with more political room to continue, but they never complained when Obama and Biden launched military strikes without congressional approval. Second, factual and intelligence-based reporting around the Senate fight says Trump's critics are pressing the administration on whether Iran truly posed an imminent threat and whether the intelligence case has been fully or honestly presented. That is one reason this is being framed, not just as a policy disagreement, but as a credibility fight. The same opponents to Trump's actions are now the same people who had previously supported Iran not becoming a nuclear power. Third is scope creep. What began as strikes has become a broader war posture, as usually happens. Democrats fear that this targeted action will expand into a wider war without a fresh vote in Congress. But remember, they supported the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Democrats are saying Trump is acting like he can widen a war first and explain later. Trump's side is treating the campaign as necessary executive action in an ongoing conflict. The Senate just showed that, for the moment, Trump has the votes he needs to avoid being boxed in. Fifty years after the War Powers Resolution became law, the constitutional struggle it was meant to resolve still remains. Yes, Congress can declare war, the president commands the military, but history shows that presidents often act first and Congress decides later whether to object. The question raised by Trump's strike on Iran is not new. It is the same question that followed Jefferson, Truman, Johnson, and Obama. Who really controls America's power to wage war? Logic mandates that a president must have the flexibility to immediately address any threat to the nation and citizens or assets within reason, and waiting for congressional approval would take time and cost lives. Having restraints on a president's actions is not a hindrance, but discontent from Congress must be applied equally, relying upon facts regardless of political party. The people elect a president to be decisive in all things, and military action when required is at the top of the list. Thank you for watching this episode of Forgotten History. If you liked what you saw, please click like, share, and subscribe. And if you would like to assist with the ever-increasing costs of production, please consider becoming a channel member and joining our Patreon page. And thanks for watching.