President Donald Trump announced on 28/2 that the US military, in coordination with Israel, had launched air strikes against Iran. He accused Iran of pursuing nuclear ambitions and developing missiles that threatened US territory, compelling Washington to initiate the offensive.

Similar to the US bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities in 6/2025 or the raid in Venezuela in early january, the White House provided no legal basis for its military action. Secretary of State Marco Rubio also did not fully explain the administration's decision to congress, raising debates about President Trump's authority, especially given the potential for a prolonged conflict involving the US.

"It was a slap in the face to congress. The president launched a war when there was no imminent threat. He did not consult or allow congress to debate, which even George W. Bush did," democratic representative Ro Khanna told CNN, referring to the republican president from 2001-2009.

President Donald Trump at the White House on 23/2. Photo: AP

Article one of the US constitution grants congress, not the president, the power to declare war. For the White House to launch an attack, it typically needs to inform the "group of eight"—comprising democratic and republican leaders in both chambers and the bicameral intelligence committee—and await approval.

However, Secretary Rubio informed the "group of eight" in congress about the decision to strike Iran just before missiles were launched, without waiting for any approval.

"Trump clearly violated the constitution by attacking Iran, because the constitution states only congress has the power to declare war and deploy US troops," said Christopher Anders, a national security expert lawyer at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). He believes President Trump is attempting to seize that power for himself.

"This is clearly a war," stated Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University and scholar at the left-leaning Cato Institute. "You don't have to believe my words, because Trump himself said it was a war."

In a video posted on Truth Social, Trump acknowledged that US troops might suffer casualties. "This is common in war. But we are not acting for the present, but for the future, and it is a noble mission," the White House chief said.

Numerous democratic lawmakers and some republican lawmakers criticized the White House's military action.

"The Trump administration has not provided congress and the American people with key information about the scope and urgency of the threat," said Senate democratic leader Chuck Schumer. "The administration must report to congress, including an immediate closed-door session for all senators and public hearings, to answer these vital questions."

"The president himself said 'American heroes could die'. That alone demands the highest level of oversight, deliberation, and accountability, but the president still did not seek congressional approval," according to Senator Mark Warner, the democratic leader of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

In contrast, Secretary Rubio and some republican lawmakers explained that Washington was compelled to act in self-defense against an unavoidable conflict initiated by Israel, a US ally, with Iran.

Rubio told reporters that the US knew Israel had planned to attack Iran and anticipated Tehran would retaliate by targeting Washington's forces in the Middle East.

Republican lawmakers asserted that this situation created an "imminent threat", forcing the US to respond.

"Because Israel was determined to act with or without the US, our commander-in-chief and administration had to make a very difficult decision," House Speaker Mike Johnson stated to reporters after a closed-door hearing.

"In my opinion, our military and commander-in-chief are directing the completion of an operation with limited scope, limited objectives, and entirely necessary to protect the United States. I believe that operation will conclude quickly," Johnson remarked.

The Trump administration and its predecessors often cite Article II of the constitution, which grants the commander-in-chief the power to deploy troops if necessary to advance US national interests abroad.

Article II paved the way for George H.W. Bush's military intervention in Panama in late 1989. Barack Obama's air strikes in Libya and Trump's military actions in Iran and Syria during his first term were also based on this provision.

Additionally, President Trump's executive authority was expanded by the US Supreme Court. In 2024, the court ruled that the president is immune from liability for official actions while in office. This view was incorporated into the legal analysis when the US relied on Article II for air strikes on Iran in 6/2025.

Article II was also cited as the basis for the raid to arrest President Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela. The US Justice Department argued that Trump was not bound by domestic law when conducting law enforcement operations abroad. The Venezuela operation also did not constitute a war in the constitutional sense, thus not requiring prior congressional approval.

Concerned about potential risks from this legal gray area, democratic leaders in both chambers, along with some republican lawmakers, are demanding that congress immediately hold a formal vote on measures limiting President Trump's war powers.

"The lives of our soldiers are at stake," democratic senator Tim Kaine said on 28/2.

However, observers suggest that even if both chambers pass such measures, President Trump retains veto power. The House could then override a presidential veto, but this requires a two-thirds majority vote, a challenging threshold given that many republican lawmakers still support Trump.

US Capitol building in Washington in 6/2025. Photo: AFP

Beyond internal US controversy, the joint operation between the US and Israel also raises concerns about compliance with international law. Both the US and Israel accused Iran of being a threat, leading to a "preemptive strike" aimed at preventing Iran from developing military capabilities. However, this lacks a basis in international law.

The United Nations Charter prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. According to experts, the right to preemptive self-defense is only recognized under extremely narrow conditions according to the Caroline doctrine.

"It requires the threat to be immediate, overwhelming, and leaving no other choice, but no such conditions existed with Iran on 28/2," wrote Shannon Brincat and Juan Zahir Naranjo Caceres, international relations experts at Sunshine Coast University, Australia, in Conversation.

Regime change by force also violates fundamental principles of national sovereignty and non-intervention enshrined in the United Nations Charter.

Statements from the US and Israel indicate that both countries are prioritizing regime change in Iran. Meanwhile, Washington and Tel Aviv have not announced any clear plans for rebuilding or stabilizing Iran after the operation, and history shows that efforts to change regimes only "exacerbate conflict and weaken the socio-political structure of that nation."

By Nhu Tam (CNN, NPR, Reuters)