The President Doesn’t Need Permission to Defend America
On Thursday Congress will vote to limit President Trump’s ability to carry out further attacks in Iran. The criticism surrounding the launch of Operation Epic Fury, mostly from the left, follows a predictable script: “No declaration of war.” “No vote.” “Unconstitutional.” Some of it is sincere, some of it reflects selective readings of history. But the premise that a president is legally paralyzed when Americans are under threat unless Congress grants advance permission is entirely wrong, and has never been how the constitutional system operates.
If Iran or its proxies are attacking U.S. forces, targeting Americans abroad, or setting the conditions for imminent harm, the President does not need to wait for a roll call vote to defend the country. Article II vests the President with Commander in Chief authority precisely because national defense sometimes requires speed, secrecy, and unity of command. Congress has long structured statutory frameworks around that reality.
This is not an “imperial presidency.” It is the basic design of American constitutional defense powers. For decades, executive branch lawyers of both parties have articulated the same principle: the President may use force unilaterally when he reasonably determines it serves important national interests and does not rise to the constitutional level of a major, prolonged war.
Presidents of both parties have acted under this framework when U.S. personnel and core national interests were threatened. Debate has often followed. That tension is not constitutional breakdown, it reflects the separation of powers functioning exactly as intended.
The central question is not whether the President has authority to respond to Iran…. The central question is whether Congress will exercise its own constitutional responsibilities.
The present debate has also mischaracterized the stated objectives of the mission. The President did not frame it as a project of political transformation. In fact, he articulated defined security objectives: ending Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons, halting expansion of its ballistic missile arsenal, preventing development of longer-range missile systems capable of reaching the United States, neutralizing threats to close the Strait of Hormuz, and degrading networks responsible for killing Americans.
Those objectives are tied directly to U.S. national security. They are not abstract aspirations. They are threat focused.
Iran’s record toward the United States has been operational and lethal. Proxy networks have killed Americans. U.S. forces and facilities have been targeted. Assassination plots have been disrupted. When both capability and demonstrated intent are present, the President’s defensive authority is not theoretical. It is grounded in protecting American lives and preserving strategic freedom of action.
A nuclear armed Iran would constrain U.S. options and increase the risks associated with defending American personnel and interests. Preventing nuclear breakout is therefore not a humanitarian claim but a strategic calculation. Deterrence theory has long recognized that once an adversary achieves protected nuclear status, the cost and complexity of prevention rise significantly.
Regime change, as stated by the President, would be a byproduct if it occurs, not the strategic objective. The objective is threat elimination directly tied to U.S. interests. That distinction matters both legally and strategically. It separates limited defensive action from open ended nation building.
As it relates to urgency and imminence, according to US. officials, in the hours leading up to the operation the U.S. had indicators that Tehran was going to launch a strike against American assets in the region. The President decided he was going to act to prevent those launches from occurring. The law does not require the Commander in Chief to wait until American lives are lost to prove a point about process.
The War Powers Resolution reflects the same constitutional equilibrium. It assumes presidents may introduce U.S. forces into hostilities without prior authorization and then Congress can impose reporting requirements and time limits. It does not categorically prohibit action; it regulates it after the introduction of force.
To be clear Congress retains immense authority. It funds the military. It may authorize sustained campaigns or restrict them. It may condition appropriations, require transparency, impose limits, and terminate engagements. If lawmakers conclude that an operation actually exceeds constitutional or statutory bounds, they possess the tools to respond. The Constitution does not, however, require the President to suspend defensive action during unfolding threats in order to secure advance legislative approval.
“America First” in this context means American power used decisively in service of defined American interests. It does not eliminate the constitutional balance between the branches, it reinforces it. The President acts to address immediate threats. Congress determines whether operations expand, contract, or continue over time.
The central question is not whether the President has authority to respond to Iran. Under established constitutional practice, he absolutely does. The central question is whether Congress will exercise its own constitutional responsibilities with clarity about objectives, scope, and duration, and without attempting to usurp or undermine executive authority.
This debate should be grounded in constitutional structure and defined national interests. It should not be distorted by claims that defensive authority disappears in the absence of prior legislative approval.
READ MORE:
Democrats Attempt to Rewrite History of Israeli–Palestinian Conflict
Iranian Hostility Increases Despite Limited Negotiating Power
Mark Goldfeder is an international lawyer, CEO of the National Jewish Advocacy Center and a law professor at Touro Law School.
John Spencer is Chair of War Studies at the Madison Policy Forum and Executive Director of the Urban Warfare Institute. He served 25 years as an infantry soldier, including two combat tours in Iraq. He is author of the book Connected Soldiers: Life, Leadership, and Social Connections in Modern War and coauthor of Understanding Urban Warfare.