President Donald Trump’s contemplation of a potential strike against Iran has brought to the forefront a crucial question: Can he actually do it? While the focus remains on his decision-making process, lawmakers, particularly Democrats, are advocating for limitations on Trump’s authority to unilaterally launch military strikes without congressional approval. Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia has long been pushing to revoke the post-9/11 authorization for the use of military force that presidents have relied on for military actions.

The Constitution stipulates that the power to declare war rests with Congress, yet the US has engaged in numerous military conflicts without formal declarations. Presidents from both parties have argued that they have the authority to initiate military actions without congressional consent. However, the legality and justification of such actions have come into question, especially in the context of potential strikes against Iran, a country not linked to the 9/11 attacks.

Efforts are underway to reinforce congressional oversight and limit executive power in matters of war. Proposals invoking the War Powers Resolution aim to mandate congressional approval for military actions against Iran. The complex legal landscape surrounding war powers, national interests, and the role of Congress in authorizing military force underscores the ongoing debate over the extent of presidential authority in initiating military actions. Ultimately, the delicate balance between executive power and congressional oversight in matters of war remains a critical issue facing the US government.