Wait, did that actually just happen? That was the vibe across Washington and the world in early 2020 when a U.S. drone strike took out Qasem Soleimani. And then it happened again—or almost did—multiple times during the Trump administration. The big, screaming question that always follows these fireworks is simple: did Trump have congressional approval to bomb Iran? Honestly, the answer isn’t a clean "yes" or "no," which is exactly why constitutional lawyers get paid the big bucks. If you’re looking for a signed piece of paper from Congress that specifically said "Go ahead and bomb Iran," you won't find it. It doesn't exist. But if you're asking if he had the legal authority to do it, well, that’s where things get murky, fast.
The Short Answer: No, But Also Sorta
Basically, Donald Trump never received a specific, fresh vote of approval from Congress to engage in a war with Iran. In fact, most of the time, Congress was actively trying to do the opposite. They were passing resolutions to keep him away from the trigger.
But here’s the kicker: the executive branch has spent decades building a "legal fortress" that allows presidents to bypass Congress for "short-term" military strikes. When the Soleimani strike happened at Baghdad International Airport, the White House didn't ask for permission. They told Congress about it after the smoke had already cleared.
Where the Power Comes From (According to the White House)
The Trump administration relied on two main pillars to justify their actions without a new vote:
- Article II of the Constitution: This is the big one. It names the President as "Commander in Chief." The Department of Justice (DOJ) argues this gives the prez the inherent power to use force to defend national interests or stop "imminent" attacks.
- The 2002 AUMF: This stands for the Authorization for Use of Military Force. Congress passed this over twenty years ago to go after Saddam Hussein in Iraq. The Trump team argued that because Soleimani was in Iraq and was a threat to U.S. forces there, this old law still applied.
Critics, of course, called this an "absurd" legal stretch. Imagine using a permission slip from 2002 meant for one guy to justify killing a totally different guy from a different country in 2020.
The 2025 Flare-Up: A Repeat Performance?
Fast forward to the more recent events of June 2025. You’ve probably seen the headlines about strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. Again, the same drama played out. President Trump directed the military to hit three sites, claiming they were "obliterated" to prevent a nuclear-armed Tehran.
📖 Related: Who is winning the Russia Ukraine war? What most people get wrong about the map
Once more, he didn't wait for a floor vote.
House Democrats immediately introduced a new War Powers Act resolution. They argued that because the United States isn't technically "at war" with Iran, any offensive strike is a violation of the Constitution. Senator Adam Schiff and others were all over the news saying it was "not lawful."
But the Trump administration’s logic hasn’t changed. They argue that as long as the "nature, scope, and duration" of the bombing is limited—meaning it’s a "one-off" and not a full-scale invasion—the President doesn't need to check with Capitol Hill first.
Why the War Powers Resolution of 1973 is Basically a Suggestion
You might have heard of the War Powers Resolution. It was passed after the Vietnam War to stop presidents from getting us into "forever wars" in secret.
It basically says:
- The President has to tell Congress within 48 hours of starting hostilities.
- The military has to stop after 60 days unless Congress says "keep going."
Trump actually vetoed a bipartisan bill in 2020 that would have forced him to end hostilities with Iran. He called it "insulting." Because Congress couldn't get enough votes to override his veto, the bill died.
📖 Related: Minneapolis School Shooting Suspect: Why the Legal Process Takes So Long
The "Imminent Threat" Loophole
A huge part of this debate centers on the word imminent.
Under international law and the U.S. Constitution, a President can always act in self-defense if an attack is about to happen right now. In 2020, the administration claimed Soleimani was planning "imminent" attacks on U.S. embassies.
The problem? They never really showed the "razor-thin" intelligence to back it up. If there isn't an actual imminent threat, the legal ground for bombing without Congress basically vanishes. It becomes an "offensive" strike rather than a "defensive" one, and offensive strikes are supposed to be Congress's job.
What This Means for the Future
The reality is that we are in a "twilight zone" of constitutional law. Congress has the power to "declare war," but the President has the power to "direct the military." Since 1942, Congress hasn't actually "declared war" once, yet we've been in dozens of conflicts.
If you’re wondering why nobody just sues the President to stop him, it’s because the Supreme Court usually hates getting involved in "political questions" like war. They tend to stay out of it and tell Congress and the President to figure it out themselves.
📖 Related: Stuck in the I-580 Traffic? What’s Actually Happening with the Crash on 580 Today
Actionable Insights: How to Track the Next Strike
If you want to know if the next move against Iran is "legal," here is what you should look for:
- The 48-Hour Report: Check the "War Powers Resolution Reporting Project" or official White House releases. If the President cites "Article II," he's acting on his own authority. If he cites an "AUMF," he's claiming Congress already gave him permission years ago.
- The "Power of the Purse": This is Congress's only real move. If they really want to stop a bombing campaign, they have to pass a law that says "No money can be spent on bombing Iran." This is hard to do because it requires enough votes to beat a presidential veto.
- Public Intelligence Briefings: Watch for whether the administration uses the word "imminent." If they don't, or if the "Gang of Eight" (top leaders in Congress) starts complaining that the intel is fake, the legal justification is likely on thin ice.
Ultimately, the question of whether Trump had congressional approval to bomb Iran is a story of a shrinking Congress and an expanding White House. Until Congress actually uses its power to cut off the money, the President—whoever they may be—is likely to keep calling the shots.
If you want to keep tabs on the latest 48-hour reports, you can monitor the Reiss Center on Law and Security or the official Congressional Record for War Powers notifications.