Was President Trump required to seek Congressional approval before launching the "Midnight Hammer" strike?
Was President Trump required to seek Congressional approval before launching the "Midnight Hammer" strike?
President Trump was not legally required to seek Congressional approval before launching the so-called "Midnight Hammer" strike—believed to have targeted Iranian nuclear facilities. Here's why:
Constitutional & Legal Context
Commander-in-Chief Authority
Article II of the U.S. Constitution grants the president broad powers to direct military operations as commander‑in‑chief. Courts have generally avoided limiting this authority even when it resulted in unilateral strikes overseas cbsnews.com+9washingtonpost.com+9nypost.com+9newsweek.com+15cbsnews.com+15theguardian.com+15.War Powers Resolution (WPR)
Enacted in 1973, the WPR aims to constrain the president’s military authority by requiring notification to Congress within 48 hours of hostilities and limiting engagement to 60 days (plus a 30‑day withdrawal) without congressional authorization reason.com+5en.wikipedia.org+5washingtonpost.com+5.Executive Branch Interpretation
Successive administrations, from both parties, have interpreted the president’s constitutional powers to allow limited military action—especially when it protects “important national interests” and doesn’t escalate into full-scale war washingtonpost.com.Historical Precedents
Bosnia (1995): NATO air campaign led by Clinton without formal authorization.
Libya (2011): Obama conducted weeks-long airstrikes absent Congressional approval.
Syria (2017): Trump ordered cruise missile strikes without legislative consent vox.com+2washingtonpost.com+2cbsnews.com+2politifact.com+5thehill.com+5newsweek.com+5cbsnews.com+6businessinsider.com+6nypost.com+6.
Why Trump Was Within His Rights
National interest & urgency: Attacks were portrayed as a critical, urgent response—justifying immediate executive action.
Operational limits: The strike was limited in scope and duration—not a prolonged war requiring Congressional declaration.
Ignorance ≠ Authority: While some lawmakers—including Rep. Thomas Massie and Sen. Mark Kelly—criticized Trump for bypassing Congress, precedent shows presidents regularly do so without legal repercussion politifact.com+2washingtonpost.com+2businessinsider.com+2theguardian.com+2thehill.com+2nypost.com+2.
Even if Congress objects, it can only act after the fact—by legislating funding restrictions or through new AUMFs (Authorization to Use Military Force) —not by blocking the immediate strike vox.com.
Political, Not Legal
Political backlash: Critics argue Trump's unilateral action was a constitutional overreach, citing the spirit of the WPR and the need for oversight washingtonpost.com+1politifact.com+1.
Congress’s tools: They can use their power of the purse or pass new legislation (e.g., a no‑war‑with‑Iran Act) to prevent future strikes—but those tools aren't retroactive blocks on this one en.wikipedia.org.
Bottom Line
Unless Congress explicitly challenged presidential authority via a binding AUMF or relevant statute—and succeeded in court—the president can lawfully launch limited military strikes like "Midnight Hammer" without prior Congressional approval. That said, continued action beyond 60 days typically triggers legal and political battles under the War Powers Resolution.
Article by NBC. Hmmm. Everything must be accurate because NBC is always correct and always truthful.
Let's watch and see.
Here is an update on what we thought we knew before - the question now is, if Iran gets a nuclear weapon will they use it against America in retaliation: Details revealed about the U.S. strikes on Iran as a truce held
A classified U.S. report found that the strikes on three of Iran’s nuclear sites set its capability back by only a few months, as a cease-fire between Israel and Iran appeared to be holding yesterday. Here’s the latest news.
The preliminary report showed that the bombing had sealed off the entrances to two of the facilities but had not collapsed their underground buildings, officials familiar with the details said. The findings suggest that President Trump’s statement that Iran’s nuclear sites were obliterated was overstated. A White House spokeswoman called the classified assessment “flat-out wrong.”
The details of the cease-fire remain unclear. Israel’s military lifted emergency restrictions imposed during the conflict, and Iran’s president hailed “the end of a 12-day war that was imposed on the Iranian people” in an address to the nation.
New York Times
The United States’ military strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities have achieved the exact opposite of their intended goal, according to Russia’s former president Dmitry Medvedev. Instead of crippling Tehran’s nuclear ambitions, the attacks have reportedly emboldened Iran and triggered a dangerous new phase in global geopolitics—one where multiple nations are now prepared to arm the Islamic Republic with nuclear warheads. This shocking revelation exposes the catastrophic miscalculations of the Trump administration, which, under pressure from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, abandoned diplomatic negotiations and launched a reckless military offensive. The opposite of what Trump claimed to want is occurring. Iran will likely be resupplied with nuclear warheads and capabilities.
Key points:
Russia’s Dmitry Medvedev claims U.S. strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites have backfired, pushing Tehran closer to weaponization.
Multiple nations allegedly stand ready to supply Iran with nuclear warheads, escalating global instability.
Western media will continue to portray Iran as having no allies, but this is nothing but propaganda.
Netanyahu’s long-standing campaign to drag the U.S. into war with Iran succeeded, undermining diplomacy.
Iran had previously agreed to stringent nuclear inspections and enrichment limits before Trump abruptly reversed course.
The US attack violates international law and risks plunging the Middle East into a wider conflict.
Iran will be emboldened after the airstrikes, as other nations come to defend them.
Netanyahu’s trap springs shut
For decades, Netanyahu has sought to embroil the U.S. in a direct confrontation with Iran, framing Tehran as an existential threat to Israel. His influence over Trump proved decisive. Just months into Trump’s second term, the U.S. abandoned promising nuclear talks—where Iran had agreed to maximum transparency, reduced uranium enrichment, and full cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)—and instead launched airstrikes on key nuclear facilities in Isfahan, Natanz, and Fordow.
An informed Iranian source revealed that negotiations between Trump’s envoy, Steve Witkoff, and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi had reached a tentative agreement. “The deal was as follows: Iran would accept maximum nuclear inspections… convert or export its stockpile of 60% enriched uranium… halt high-level enrichment… and resolve all technical ambiguities with the IAEA,” the source said. In return, the U.S. would lift nuclear-related sanctions.
But after a call between Netanyahu and Trump, Washington abruptly demanded Iran completely abandon its peaceful nuclear program—a nonstarter that sabotaged diplomacy. Two days before the next round of talks, Israel attacked Iran, forcing Trump’s hand. “This was Israel’s trap—designed to drag the U.S. into war,” the source said.
A dangerous new nuclear reality
Medvedev’s warning that nations are now prepared to supply Iran with nuclear warheads marks a terrifying escalation. Russia, a key Iranian ally, has already condemned the U.S. strikes as “irresponsible” and a violation of international law. Meanwhile, Tehran—which has no active nuclear weapons program, according to the IAEA—may now reconsider its commitment to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
“Countries like North Korea, India, Pakistan, and Israel rejected the NPT and developed nukes—yet they remain immune from attack,” said Trita Parsi of the Quincy Institute. “Iran has learned the hard way that disarmament invites aggression.”
Trump’s decision to strike Iran also exposes the hypocrisy of U.S. nonproliferation policy. Israel, the Middle East’s sole nuclear power with an estimated 400 warheads, has never faced consequences for its arsenal. Meanwhile, Iran—subject to the most intrusive inspections in history—was bombed despite no evidence of weaponization.
The consequences of this reckless escalation are dire. Iran, now more unified under its leadership, may accelerate its nuclear efforts. Russia and other nations could further embolden Iran by supplying advanced weaponry. And the U.S., having violated the UN Charter, faces global condemnation, especially if they push for regime change and destabilization of Iran.
Sources include:
Jpost.com
MiddleEastEye.net
CNBC.com
NewsTarget