Trump weighs military action against Iran amid mounting legal concerns

President Donald Trump is contemplating whether to order U.S. strikes on Iran and will make a decision within two weeks, White House officials said Thursday, capping days of intense speculation about the president’s plan in the region – and touching off new fears of escalation, retaliation, and long-term engagement in another foreign conflict.

Trump spent much of the week musing publicly about the prospect of involving the U.S. more directly in the Israeli-Iranian conflict, as the two countries continued to carry out deadly strikes against one another. As the week went on, Trump continued to break with attempts by Cabinet officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who had attempted to distance the role the U.S. played in helping Israel.

Trump warned on social media Wednesday that the U.S. has "complete and total control of the skies over Iran," and demanded an "unconstitutional surrender" from Iran. 

He has also repeatedly refused to rule out the prospect of carrying out a direct strike on Iran. "I may do it. I may not do it," he told reporters Wednesday. "I mean, nobody knows what I'm going to do," he said.

TRUMP TO MAKE IRAN DECISION 'WITHIN THE NEXT TWO WEEKS' GIVEN 'CHANCE' OF NEGOTIATIONS, LEAVITT SAYS

That statement, more than any others, illustrates the central question thrumming through much of Washington this week, as Trump continues to huddle with advisers for meetings in the Situation Room, including at least one meeting where he reportedly approved attack plans against Tehran, in the event they failed to put an end to their nuclear program, as the administration demanded. (News of that meeting was first reported by the Wall Street Journal.)

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt declined to elaborate on the nature of U.S.-Iranian talks on Thursday, telling reporters only that Trump planned to make a decision on how to proceed within the two-week period. 

Meanwhile, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei rejected negotiations with the U.S. on Wednesday, warning that if it attacked Iran, the U.S. "without doubt, will face irreparable harm."

Here's what we know about Trump's options, should he choose to order U.S. strikes on Iran – and the risks, legal and otherwise, the U.S. could encounter as a result.

Trump has been weighing ordering the U.S. to conduct a strike against Iran, including the possibility of targeting the country's nuclear enrichment facility at Fordow, a key nuclear facility located south of Tehran.

But while Trump huddles with his advisers at the White House, lawmakers have been convening on the other side of Pennsylvania Avenue for closed-door meetings of their own. 

Trump's remarks have done little to quell mounting fears of escalation in the Middle East – both from some MAGA supporters, who rallied around his promises of ending "forever wars," and Democrats, who fear retaliation that an offensive would bring.

Reps. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., and Ro Khanna, D-Calif., announced new bipartisan legislation this week that would require Trump to obtain congressional approval before signing off on any meaningful engagement with Iran, such as offensive strikes on its nuclear facilities. 

The bill has attracted the support of an odd coalition of bipartisan lawmakers, including Trump supporters who are opposed to U.S. engagement in more foreign wars, and Democrats, including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y. 

Those lawmakers argue that Trump, in acting unilaterally, would violate standing U.S. laws – namely, limitations enumerated in the War Powers Resolution, or the law passed by Congress in 1973 aimed at codifying the instances in which a president can authorize the use of force in foreign conflicts without a formal war declaration.

'INSTINCTS FOR RESTRAINT': SENATE DIVIDED OVER WHO GETS TO DECLARE WAR

"The ongoing war between Israel and Iran is not our war," Massie said in announcing the bill. "Even if it were, Congress must decide such matters according to our Constitution."

But in the decades since the law was passed, presidents have expanded their powers here significantly absent congressional authorization, including under both Democrat and Republican presidents. This has, to some degree, been reflected by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, which has taken a broader view of the Article II powers granted to presidents when initiating the use of force— especially when it is in the "national interest" to do so. 

These broader powers have been used by Republican presidents, and during both the Obama and Biden administrations, officials told Fox News Digital. 

Michael Rubin, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, stressed this in an interview with Fox News. 

"There's lots of precedents of presidents ignoring the technicalities" of the War Powers Regulation, he said in an interview Thursday.

Ultimately, Rubin said, the president "has the ability to act without it for a set period of time. And so [the law] really only applies if we're going to be going into a major operation rather than a one-time bombing."

"The fact of the matter is, the worst option for American security is allowing Iran to reconstitute its program because of what it has buried in Fordow," said Rubin, a former Pentagon official whose work at AEI focuses largely on issues in the Middle East.

In the interim, however, Trump's threats have sparked concerns from some critics, who see his remarks as both dangerous and potentially rife for possible retaliation from Tehran. 

Critics have suggested they could also endanger U.S. officials stationed overseas, including those within the strike range of Iran.

"It should be the interest of the White House to use U.S. leverage to stop the fighting," Brian Finucane, a senior adviser at the International Crisis Group, told Fox News in an interview. 

"The U.S. is assisting Israel with missile defense right now," he said. The business of defense "is to stop the fight," he said.

There are also fears that the U.S. could be acting in violation of international law, including the United Nations charter that "prohibits the threat or use of force except in certain limited circumstances, such as self-defense," according to a white paper published in 2019 by Just Security. 

In this situation, critics say the U.S. has no pretext to authorize a strike against Iran.

"I don't think there's any plausible self-defense argument for U.S. military action against Iran," Brian Finucane, a senior adviser at the International Crisis Group, told Fox News in an interview. 

"So any U.S. military action against Iran would violate the UN Charter and thus breach the president's duty of the Constitution to take care that the laws are faithfully executed," he said.

Others on the Hill and beyond have taken a more supportive posture as Trump weighs his next steps.

Speaking in an interview Thursday morning on "Fox & Friends," Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., praised Trump’s actions so far in the region, saying Trump is "doing absolutely the right thing to keep America safe."

"He has been very consistent for 10 years saying Iran cannot be allowed to have a nuclear weapon," Barrasso said. "He said it strongly. He's read it repeatedly because he knows that Iran with a nuclear weapon is a threat to the people of the United States. We stand with the people [of] Israel."

Sen. Lindsey Graham has been among Trump's most vocal supporters, and said in interviews earlier this week that he believes Trump has a desire to "finish the job" in destroying Fordow.

"I don’t think Israel can finish Fordow without our help, and it’s in our interest to make sure this program is destroyed, as much as it’s Israel’s," he said in an interview. 

"And so if there’s something you need to do to help Israel, do it," he said.   

Rubin, the AEI fellow, also sought to differentiate Trump's actions from other presidents who have engaged in lengthy foreign conflicts.

"The issue with Iran is we're not entangling the United States in war," Rubin said. "We're taking an opportunity to end a crisis once and for all. It seems to be a one-shot deal."

Still, it's unclear what Trump's end game will be, should he choose to strike Iran. 

That's in part by design, said Finucane, the adviser at the International Crisis Group, who previously spent a decade in the Office of Legal Counsel for the State Department.

 "The Constitution, very deliberately, gives the power to declare war to Congress," he said.

"And it does so to make going to war hard," he said. "It requires collective decision-making, and prior public debate; deliberation [of] the cost and benefits of the most consequential decision that the U.S. government can make, in terms of blood and treasure," he said.

"Therefore, if the U.S. wants to minimize the risk of getting dragged into an unnecessary war in the Middle East, and at least minimize risks to people in the region, including Americans in the region, then it should be in the interest of the White House to put a stop to the fighting – whether or not it wants to get involved,"