The United States is now over 100 days into its war with Iran, and the same old debate has resurfaced once again: did the president actually have the constitutional authority to start this thing?
If you’ve been paying attention to the news, you already know the answer is messy. The House recently passed a War Powers resolution that would require removing offensive forces within 30 days, but getting it through the Senate is another matter entirely. Presidents have been skirting congressional approval for military action for well over a century, and honestly, it feels like we’re just watching history repeat itself.
A Constitutional Gray Area That’s Become the Norm
Here’s the uncomfortable truth: Congress hasn’t officially declared war since June 4, 1942, when it declared war on Bulgaria, Hungary, and Romania during World War II. That’s over 80 years of the US military engaging in conflicts without a formal declaration. Instead, Congress has typically approved force through Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) bills, which are technically not the same thing as a declaration of war.
Professor Andrew Wiest from the University of Southern Mississippi put it pretty bluntly: “Since 1946, Congress has relinquished this constitutional authority and granted it to the president, probably much to the founders’ chagrin. The founders were extremely wary of a president with too much military authority.”
And he’s right. The Constitution is crystal clear that only Congress has the power to declare war, but somewhere along the way, that power got conveniently overlooked. It became especially pronounced after World War II, when the US found itself as the world’s dominant superpower and presidents started acting like they had a blank check for military interventions.
The Philippines: Where It All Started (Sort Of)
Long before the modern era of AUMFs and War Powers Resolutions, President William McKinley was already pushing the boundaries. After the Spanish-American War, the US acquired the Philippines through the Treaty of Paris in 1898. But Filipino revolutionary fighters weren’t having it—they declared independence and resisted American control.
McKinley never asked Congress for a formal declaration of war. Instead, he pointed to the newly ratified treaty as his authorization. It was a stretch, and anti-imperialists in Congress called it illegal, but the war went on anyway. It lasted from 1899 to 2002, resulting in 4,200 American deaths and up to 200,000 civilian deaths from disease, famine, and violence.
This pattern set the stage for what was coming.
Korea: The “Police Action” That Wasn’t
When North Korea invaded South Korea in 1950, President Harry Truman didn’t bother asking Congress for approval at all. Instead, he called it a “police action” under the United Nations. The UN Security Council directed member nations to assist South Korea, and Truman figured that was good enough.
Senator Robert Taft wasn’t buying it. He called the lack of congressional approval “a complete usurpation by the president of authority to use the armed forces of this country.” But the war lasted three years anyway, claiming 37,000 American lives and potentially 5 million total deaths.
Wiest noted that the UN resolution provided convenient cover. “With a UN resolution to defend South Korea, what more top cover do you need?” he said. It’s a sentiment that’s been repeated over and over throughout American military history.
Vietnam and Cambodia: The Bombs That Keeps Dropping
The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in 1964 gave Lyndon Johnson authority to use force in Vietnam, but when Congress repealed it two years later, the war continued anyway under Richard Nixon. Then Nixon went further, secretly bombing Cambodia starting in 1969 without ever informing Congress.
From 1969 to 1973, the US dropped 540,000 tons of bombs on Cambodia. Estimates of civilian deaths range from 150,000 to 500,000. The bombing campaigns continued even after the Gulf of Tonkin resolution was repealed, which was technically illegal but happened anyway.
This prompted Congress to pass the War Powers Resolution of 1973, designed specifically to limit presidential war powers. Nixon vetoed it, but Congress overrode the veto with a two-thirds majority. It was supposed to be a check on executive power, but in practice, it hasn’t stopped presidents from doing what they want.
Grenada, Panama, and the Pattern Continues
In 1983, Ronald Reagan invaded Grenada to protect American medical students and restore order after a coup. No congressional approval was sought, and Congress invoked the War Powers Resolution, forcing a withdrawal within 60 days. The operation lasted only eight days, but 19 US soldiers and 24 Grenadian civilians died.
George H.W. Bush took a similar approach in 1989 with the invasion of Panama, codenamed Operation Just Cause. The goal was to overthrow Manuel Noriega, who was indicted for drug trafficking. Like Reagan, Bush didn’t seek congressional approval, but this time there was strong public and congressional support, so nobody really cared about the constitutional question.
Noriega was captured, convicted, and sentenced to 40 years in prison.
The Nineties: NATO Provides Cover
The Kosovo War in 1999 saw NATO led by the US bombing Yugoslavia. Although the House initially authorized sending peacekeeping troops, a later measure authorizing the strikes failed in a tie vote. The bombing continued anyway.
A war powers lawsuit filed by 31 members of the House was dismissed because the judge found “a clear impasse between the executive and legislative branches” was absent. It’s a technicality that sounds absurd when you’re talking about bombing another country.
Then came Libya in 2011. President Barack Obama never sought congressional approval for the intervention, even as the UN Security Council authorized military action to protect civilians from Gaddafi’s forces. Ten House members filed a lawsuit trying to block the operation, but a federal judge dismissed it.
The pattern is clear: international authorization from the UN or NATO has become a convenient workaround for presidents who don’t want to deal with Congress.
The Houthi Strikes and the Iran Operation
Fast forward to recent years, and the pattern hasn’t changed. The US has been striking Houthi targets in Yemen since 2023 without congressional approval, with both Biden and Trump administrations conducting operations. The most recent strikes in 2025 killed at least 224 civilians, according to the Middle East monitoring group Airwars.
Then came Operation Midnight Hammer, where the Trump administration struck Iran’s nuclear facilities without Congressional approval. Trump argued it was necessary to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. While Republican lawmakers broadly supported it, Democrats and even some Republicans like Thomas Massie criticized the lack of authorization.
And most recently, the Trump administration conducted surprise strikes on Venezuela in January, deposing Nicolás Maduro and bringing him to the US to face narco-terrorism charges. Critics in Congress questioned the legality, and a war powers resolution was blocked by the Republican-led Senate majority.
The Double Standard in the Room
Wiest pointed out something interesting about how presidents have gamed the system: “The use of air power has almost been a kind of national ‘Get Out of Jail Free’ card when it comes to opening these types of conflicts.”
It’s a revealing observation. Drone strikes, bombing campaigns, and targeted operations have been treated differently than ground wars, giving presidents more leeway to act without congressional pushback. It’s a distinction that makes no constitutional sense but has somehow become standard practice.
What Does This Mean for the Iran War?
So here we are, over 100 days into the Iran conflict, with constitutional questions once again being raised. The House passed a War Powers resolution that needs 60 votes in the Senate to even come up for a vote, and then Trump could veto it, requiring a two-thirds override from both houses.
It’s the same song and dance we’ve seen for over a century. Presidents claim authority, Congress grumbles, and military operations continue regardless of the constitutional technicalities. The War Powers Resolution exists, but it hasn’t stopped anything.
Maybe things will be different this time. Maybe Congress will finally reassert its authority. But given the track record, I’d bet against it. The pattern is too entrenched, and the political incentives always seem to favor letting the president act first and ask questions later.
