The attack on Iran required congressional authorization ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌

[link removed]

President Woodrow Wilson ran for reelection in 1916 on the slogan “He kept us out of war,” only to plunge the United States into World War I months later. Donald Trump rivals Wilson for a head-snapping change of posture by a president. So much for ending the “forever wars.”

Iran’s nuclear ambitions have long been a threat, and the Brennan Center doesn’t opine on the merits or consequences of foreign policy decisions. But last weekend’s U.S. bombing of Iran, carried out under these circumstances, can happen only with the authorization of Congress.

Once again, Donald Trump has shown contempt for the constitutional order. And once again, called on to react, Congress seems poised to bend the knee.

Concerns about untrammeled presidential power led Congress to enact the War Powers Resolution in 1973 after the trauma of the Vietnam War. It recognizes that the president may use military force only when a war is declared, after Congress passes an authorization of military force, or when there is a “national emergency created by attack” against the United States. In such an emergency, the resolution requires the president to consult with Congress “in every possible instance.” It also requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours and to terminate operations if Congress has not authorized military use within 60 days.

Many presidents chafed at these restrictions. But when it came to major military action, they followed them. George H. W. Bush secured congressional authorization before the Gulf War in 1991. George W. Bush won congressional approval for the Iraq War. Congress authorized the military response to the September 11 terrorist attacks.

To be clear, presidents of both parties have ordered military action without approval, often citing the limited nature of the operations. But the strike in Iran was hardly a raid against a terrorist cell. This was an attack on the military infrastructure of a country with 93 million people. It has sponsored terrorism for decades, deployed proxies such as Hezbollah and Hamas, and dominated Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen. It has, in short, capacity to respond and a record of aggression. At the time of the attack, a wide range of consequences was possible. Wars rarely unfold as anticipated. As former Defense Secretary James Mattis has observed, “The enemy gets a vote.”

There was no “national emergency created by attack.” Indeed, calling it an emergency of any kind is surely a stretch. Trump’s own director of national intelligence recently testified

[link removed]

that the intelligence community “continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamanei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003.” Vice President JD Vance explained

[link removed]

, rather cryptically and definitely worryingly, “Of course we trust our intelligence community, but we also trust our instincts.”

Trump’s defenders fall back to the broadest and weakest legal justification. This is all part, they say, of his power as commander in chief of the military. A terse letter

[link removed]

to Congress last night explained that the attack was needed “to advance vital United States interests, and in collective self-defense of our ally, Israel.” That was about the extent of the rationale given.

We must understand this as part of Trump’s headlong drive to vastly expand presidential power. Already, claiming spurious emergencies, Trump has illegally imposed sweeping tariffs and used the Alien Enemies Act to strip migrants of due process. As David Frum, who supported the strike against Iran, noted

[link removed]

, “Trump has not put U.S. boots on the ground to fight Iran, but he has put U.S. troops on the ground for an uninvited military occupation of California.” As my colleague Katherine Yon Ebright notes, Trump says bombing Iran is not a war — but insists that immigration violations and drug dealing by a criminal gang

[link removed]

is. And we all know that wartime, real or imagined, offers many new chances to trample on rights and amass power.

Courts are not likely to step up. Rarely if ever have they intervened to stop a president’s war-making power.

No, Congress must be the principal check on an out-of-control executive. It can invoke the War Powers Resolution and vote on whether future military intervention in Iran is authorized. A bipartisan group of lawmakers, led by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) and Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA), has already introduced an Iran War Powers Resolution in the House and Senate. The measure must be brought for a vote. House Speaker Mike Johnson called the measure “all politics.”

Without a supine Congress, we could not have an imperial presidency. Lawmakers are practiced at ducking responsibility, fretting, and orating, but they’re secretly relieved that someone else is acting and taking the heat. That’s one big reason why Congress has ceded its war-making authority.

James Madison said it well, writing

[link removed]

to Thomas Jefferson in 1798: “The Constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care, vested the question of war in the Legislature.”





Defending the Franchise

Last week, North Carolina voters and pro-voter organizations represented by the Brennan Center and its partners went to court to fight for their right to vote. The voters are among hundreds of thousands of North Carolinians at risk of being disenfranchised by a Trump administration lawsuit that could wrongly remove them from voter rolls. Read more

[link removed]

In the Budget Bill, a Familiar Story of Money in Politics

The House’s annual budget bill illustrates how donating to members of Congress pays off. The legislation includes policy changes that would benefit the wealthiest Americans at the expense of the poorest. “The goal of reform should be to ensure that the interests of all Americans are represented in federal policy, regardless of how much money they have,” Grady Yuthok Short writes. Read more

[link removed]

What to Know About the Los Angeles Military Deployment

President Trump’s deployment of federalized National Guard forces and U.S. Marines to Los Angeles has raised a host of legal questions — several of which have yet to be addressed by courts. In a new explainer, Elizabeth Goitein lays out the facts and explores the legal implications of the domestic deployment order. Read more

[link removed]

Hampering Congressional Oversight

New Department of Homeland Security guidance could make it nearly impossible for members of Congress to perform their oversight duties and ensure that people held in certain Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities are treated humanely. This troubling development conflicts with a federal law allowing lawmakers to visit any DHS-owned immigration detention center without prior notice. Read more

[link removed]

Habeas Corpus, Explained

After several setbacks in federal court — including a pause on its efforts to deport Venezuelan immigrants to a Salvadoran megaprison — the Trump administration now says it may consider suspending habeas corpus. This fundamental constitutional right allows people to challenge their detention in court. A new Brennan Center explainer details why habeas matters, how it’s being used to push back against the administration’s policies, and why only Congress, not the president, has the power to suspend it. Read more

[link removed]

Social Media Screening Threatens Free Speech

Government agencies, including DHS and the State Department, are moving to base citizenship and visa decisions on reviews of applicants’ social media activity. Although this proposed change is being framed as a way to combat antisemitism, Rachel Levinson-Waldman and Melanie Gellar warn in Just Security that these overbroad directives “will inevitably chill or punish First Amendment–protected speech.” Read more

[link removed]

Missed Opportunity for Safer Elections in Nevada

Nevada Gov. Joe Lombardo vetoed a bill this month that would have prohibited guns at election sites. This bill, which garnered broad public support, would have granted the state’s voters protections that are already available in states including Florida and Texas. At a time of increasing political violence and voter intimidation, the governor’s decision to veto the legislation “has left voters and election workers vulnerable,” Catherine Silvestri writes. Read more

[link removed]

PODCAST: The Guarantee of Birthright Citizenship

Our latest podcast episode analyzes the legal arguments the Trump administration is using in an effort to end birthright citizenship. Now the Supreme Court will weigh in. Brennan Center experts talk to historians about the 14th Amendment and more than a century’s worth of related case law. Listen on Spotify

[link removed]

, Apple Podcasts

[link removed]

, or your favorite podcast platform

[link removed]

, or watch on YouTube

[link removed]

.





Coming Up

VIRTUAL EVENT: Supreme Court Term in Review

[link removed]

Wednesday, July 9, 3–4 p.m. ET



The Supreme Court currently faces some of the biggest challenges in its history. The president is determined to break through the constitutional limits of executive power, and the Court’s own public approval hovers near all-time lows. Will the justices stand up for the Constitution on the biggest issue facing the country, the extraordinary executive power grab?



Against this backdrop, the justices are poised to hand down rulings in key cases that will affect millions of people’s lives, including healthcare, education, and political representation, as well as the power of federal courts to issue nationwide injunctions. Join us for a virtual conversation with Supreme Court experts about the Court’s decisions this term and what they mean for the rule of law at a time when democracy is under strain. RSVP today

[link removed]

Want to keep up with Brennan Center Live events? Subscribe to the events newsletter.

[link removed]





News

Michael Li on gerrymandering efforts in Texas // AUSTIN AMERICAN-STATESMAN

[link removed]

Joseph Nunn on the appeals court ruling on the Los Angeles military deployment // HUFFPOST

[link removed]

Eric Petry on conflicts of interest in the Trump administration // SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE

[link removed]

Gowri Ramachandran on protecting officeholders from violent threats // GOVERNING

[link removed]

Feedback on this newsletter? Email us at [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]







[link removed]

Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law

120 Broadway, Suite 1750 New York, NY 10271

646-292-8310

tel:646-292-8310

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Support Brennan Center

[link removed]

View Online

[link removed]

Want to change how you receive these emails or unsubscribe? Click here

[link removed]

to update your preferences.

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]