Did Congress Grant the President the Authority to Attack Iran? Yes.
February 28, 2026 10:52am
Did Congress grant the President the authority to attack Iran? Yes.
Firstly, Public Law 107–40 (Authorization for Use of Military Force), which was passed by the 107th Congress in 2001, is still in effect. It states that "the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons." The intent was probably to authorize force only against al-Qaeda and the Taliban. But the approved language is much broader than that. Barack Obama used that Joint Resolution as his legal justification for airstrikes in Iraq, Syria, and Libya. It is inarguable that Iran is the world's biggest sponsor of international terrorism, much of which has been directed at the United States and our allies.
Army Captain Nathan Smith sued President Obama, arguing that that 2001 AUMF was not applicable to the 2016 orders he'd received vis a vis Operation Inherent Resolve, an operation against ISIS. ISIS did not even exist in 2001, but Barack Obama applied that 2001 law to it. The case was dismissed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. I should note that it was dismissed as moot not based on any merits.
Secondly, Public Law 107-243 (Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002) has never been repealed. Although the "Against Iraq" verbiage seems very specific, Section 3(a) of the resolution states "The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq." But Iran is not Iraq, right? Yet Barack Obama used that Joint Resolution as his legal authority to order airstrikes against ISIS. Donald Trump later used it to justify killing General Soleimani, the head of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Quds Force.
Then there's the 1973 War Powers Act. It specifically recognizes the President's authority to commit military forces to hostile action without Congressional approval. It requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours that troops have been deployed, and that such action may only last 60 days unless Congress authorizes a longer period (although there is an automatic 30 day extension, so it's really 90 days). No court has ever ruled on it, but there are many legitimate arguments that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional. Most arguments challenge the Act's language that limits a President's authority to engage in hostilities not the language that grants it.
Lastly (last in this writing not last in constitutional importance), Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution says "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States..." It has been generally agreed historically that the President has unilateral power to repel and prevent attacks against the United States even without a Declaration of War. Congress hasn't declared war since December 11, 1941. Yet every President since has ordered the use of military force somewhere in the world.
Donald Trump absolutely has the authority to order these current strikes against Iran. Is it wise? It's too soon to tell. But if the people of Iran take this opportunity to rise up and overthrow the mad mullahs who have oppressed them for nearly half a century; and they install a secular, pro-western government; then the current military action will prove to have been the greatest accomplishment of his Presidency.