Greenberg: Yes, Trump Has the Legal Power to Strike

​Contrary to Left-wing activists’ incessant rants, U.S. Presidents do indeed possess broad authority, as Commander in Chief, to order limited military actions, including missile strikes against foreign adversaries, without any legal obligation to seek prior congressional approval nor engage in extensive ongoing consultations.

How is this Constitutional? Because the executive branch’s power allows presidents to respond swiftly to threats, to protect national interests, and enforce international norms, often emphasizing the critical element of surprise to maximize effectiveness and minimize risks to U.S. forces.

Although the Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war, this has historically applied to prolonged, large-scale conflicts with ground troops committed, rather than tactical operations like short-term missile barrages and targeted air strikes.

Past administrations have interpreted presidential authority to permit unilateral force when it serves important national interests, such as deterring chemical weapons use or countering aggression, and remains limited in nature, scope, and duration. These actions do not rise to the level of “war” in the constitutional sense.

With the coordinated strikes against Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, launched this weekend by Israel and United States, armchair activists and shrieking Democrats in office are now demanding a vote under the “War Powers,” an Act enacted in 1973 post-Vietnam, meant to curb executive overreach. Yet the Act imposes no absolute prior-approval requirement for these military strikes undertook this weekend.

Though the Act mandates consultation “in every possible instance” before putting U.S. forces into hostilities, the presidential branch can interpret this flexibly: time-sensitive operations demand secrecy to preserve the element of surprise.

Clearly, full congressional deliberation was, and is, impractical and highly risky due to potential leaks. Presidents often brief select leaders (e.g., the “Gang of Eight”) shortly before or after, but these are not mandatory pre-launch consultations with the full body of Congress.

The Act requires a written report within 48 hours after the fact, detailing circumstances and legal basis, while the provision for a 60/90-day clock for military withdrawal applies only to sustained hostilities; it’s irrelevant for current missile attacks.

Again, the element of surprise was crucial in these operations. Advance notice to Congress risked alerting adversaries. Missile launches from stealth bombers, naval vessels or submarines occur rapidly, often within moments of the President’s decision, ensuring operational security and effectiveness. It simply works.

There is historical proof of this: presidents prioritize surprise to achieve objectives with minimal U.S. exposure. In 1986, President Ronald Reagan ordered airstrikes and missiles on Libya without prior congressional approval, in response to terrorism. President Bill Clinton launched Operation Desert Fox missile strikes on Iraq in 1998 and the 1999 Kosovo air campaign without explicit authorization. In 2011, President Barack Obama directed strikes and enforced a no-fly zone in Libya; his administration argued operations fell short of “hostilities” under the War Powers Resolution, notifying Congress after initiation despite debates over consultation. President Trump, in April 2017, ordered 59 Tomahawk missiles against Syria in retaliation for chemical weapons use, briefing congressional leaders shortly before but without seeking approval, emphasizing national security and surprise needed to prevent Assad’s forces from relocating assets. Similar patterns appear in the 2020 Soleimani drone strike and various counter-ISIS or Houthi operations under multiple presidential administrations.

Reagan, Clinton, Obama and Trump demonstrate bipartisan acceptance of unilateral limited strikes. Courts view such disputes as non-adjudicable political questions.

Trump’s Commander-in-Chief role is supported by historical practice and flexible statutory interpretation, enabling launching current attacks in Iran without prior congressional involvement. Surprise ensures tactical success and safeguards lives.