#WTH: Does Trump Need a Declaration of War or Authorization for the Use of Military Force?

BLUF: No

This was first published in Middle East Forum Observer on February 28, 2026

On February 28, 2026, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said, “The framers of the United States Constitution gave Congress the sole power to declare war. … Donald Trump failed to seek congressional authorization prior to striking Iran. Instead, the president’s decision to abandon diplomacy and launch a massive military attack has left American troops vulnerable to Iran’s retaliatory actions.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer commented: “The administration has not provided Congress and the American people with critical details about the scope and immediacy of the threat. … President Trump’s fitful cycles of lashing out and risking wider conflict are not a viable strategy.”

And former Vice President Kamala Harris said, “This is a dangerous and unnecessary gamble with American lives that also jeopardizes stability in the region and our standing in the world. … Congress must use all available power to prevent him from further committing us to this conflict.”

There’s plenty more, but the vibe is clear: Much of the Democratic Party does not support the notion of military action to eliminate the Iranian threat and potentially topple the regime. What a difference a day makes.

In 2011, in response to then President Barack Obama’s decision to join a war to topple Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi, then Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said, “We must ask ourselves, as senators, was our participation in this international effort to stop mass murder and chaos in Libya a just decision? I am confident it was. … Our support of this mission is crucial to our NATO alliances.”

And Chuck Schumer, circa 2011, said, “Gaddafi is a bad guy. He’s been a bad guy for a long time. The idea of stopping him from massacring his own people is a good one.”

No handwringing by congressional Democrats then over the failure of Obama to seek or obtain congressional authorization before commencing combat operations. Ditto the Democrats’ reaction to President Clinton’s decision in 1999 to launch a seventy-eight-day air war against Serbia.

If pressed to justify their acquiescence in these undeclared and unauthorized wars, Democrats would have explained that the actions of Obama and Clinton were justified as “humanitarian interventions”—uses of U.S. military force intended to prevent gross violations of human rights and save the lives of innocents. One suspects they will see no basis for humanitarian intervention by Trump in Iran, notwithstanding the regime’s murder of tens of thousands of its own citizens in recent weeks.

Partisanship and hypocrisy on the question of military action are features of American democracy. But that does not change the law, the Constitution, or the traditions of Executive-Legislative Branch communications.

Late on the night of February 27, 2026, prior to the launch of military operations against Iran, National Security Adviser/Secretary of State Marco Rubio, himself a former senator, rang the so-called Gang of Eight leaders of Congress—Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD), Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Intelligence Chair Tom Cotton (R-AR), and Vice Chair Mark Warner (D-VA), House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA), Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), Intelligence Chair Rick Crawford (R-AR), and Ranking Member Jim Himes (D-CT). He reportedly briefed seven of them—Rubio’s office says multiple attempts to reach Jeffries were unsuccessful—that a joint U.S.-Israeli operation was imminent. This tradition, largely observed—an exception was the Obama administration’s operation to capture or kill Osama bin Laden—is the normal first call from the Executive to Capitol Hill.

Following such a briefing, and consistent with the War Powers Resolution that requires notice within forty-eight hours of the commencement of U.S. involvement in hostilities, most presidents have then sent a report to Congress. Trump did so on Venezuela, on Caribbean operations, on Operation Midnight Hammer, and previous presidents have been reasonably faithful in doing so. Here’s the language of the 50 U.S.C. § 1543:

“In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced—

1. into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;

2. into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or

3. in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation;

the President shall submit within forty-eight hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President Pro Tempore of the Senate a report, in writing...”

Now, Minority Leader Jeffries insists that Congress has the “sole power” to declare war. And he is right; the Constitution makes that clear. But James Madison’s notes on the Constitutional Convention of 1787 also make clear that the Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces—i.e., the president—retains the power to make war.

Indeed, the United States has declared war only eleven times in its entire history. In the twentieth century, war was declared twice in World War I (Germany, Austria-Hungary), and six times in World War II (Japan, Germany, Italy, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania). What about Korea? Vietnam? Kosovo? Afghanistan? Iraq? Nope. Libya? Syria? Also, nope.

Okay, but perhaps a so-called Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) takes the place of a formal declaration of war? Again, only seven such AUMFs have passed since 1900. And for many of those, Congress has been at odds with the White House about the nature and breadth of the authorization (see Gulf of Tonkin, 1964; post–9/11 AUMF).

So, what’s the bottom line? Like much of what happens in Washington, D.C., it all depends where someone sits. Successive presidents have declared the War Powers Resolution unconstitutional, as it supposedly interferes with the commander in chief’s constitutional authorities to defend the United States. Congress, regardless of party, likes to wave the War Powers Resolution around. But the actual histories are instructive. While members of Congress have repeatedly criticized presidents, claiming variously that only Congress can “declare” war and that this or that conflict is “illegal,” Congress clearly has the ability to both legislate restrictions on the expenditure of funds for a given conflict or rescind an existing AUMF.

The contentious Iraq AUMF, supported, for example, by Hillary Clinton, and which arguably helped her lose her runs for the White House in 2008 and 2016, was only repealed in December 2025. The broad umbrella post–9/11 War on Terror AUMF that has been the legal rationale for everything from operations in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and beyond, remains operative. Pressed by Congress to propose new language, the Obama White House struggled for months to provide language to Capitol Hill, and once it did so, Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee were unanimous in rejecting it.

Why is Congress so feckless? Why is the White House so imperial? It’s actually not that complicated. Congress doesn’t truly want to vote on wars. If they go well, and a member opposes the AUMF, he is damaged goods. This is what happened to Joe Biden, who opposed the hugely successful first Gulf War (Desert Storm), and was passed over for vice president by Bill Clinton, who wanted someone who had voted the “right” way (hence his selection of Al Gore as his running mate). If the war goes badly or becomes unpopular, but a member voted for it (see Clinton, Hillary), the price can be catastrophic.

As a result, Congress prefers to complain, to wave around paper, to introduce never-to-be-passed resolutions condemning, defunding, or otherwise permitting/blocking military conflict, but in the end, mostly prefers to be an onlooker.

Now back to Iran. In the coming days, members may well introduce both AUMFs and resolutions defunding operations against Iran. Here’s my prediction: None will pass. If the decapitation of the regime goes well, many of today’s critics will reveal that they were secretly supportive of the military operation all along. If not, there will be blame aplenty. At the end of the day, there will be no question about the Constitution. Only about politics.