“Launching precision strikes against nuclear facilities does not meet the threshold of a full-scale war that would require prior congressional authorization,” the DOJ official said.
“And if the situation escalates or extends into a sustained military operation, the administration is prepared to engage Congress at that time.”
The justification, according to DOJ sources, is also grounded in long-standing internal legal opinions from the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), many of which were written under both Republican and Democratic administrations.
These memos have historically affirmed that the president has discretion to order limited military action without prior congressional approval, particularly when the goal is to protect national security interests or respond to urgent international threats.
A senior White House official echoed this defense in a separate statement to CNN, asserting that President Trump “acted within his legal authority as Commander-in-Chief” and emphasized that top lawmakers from both chambers of Congress had been briefed in advance — and expressed support for the mission.
Attorney General Pam Bondi is expected to appear before the House of Representatives tomorrow to testify on a range of issues, including the legality of the Iranian strikes.
Sources say Bondi will stand firmly behind the administration’s stance, underscoring the legitimacy of the president’s Article II powers and citing the OLC memos that have long served as the executive branch’s legal foundation for such actions.
As the debate intensifies in Washington, questions remain about the scope of executive military power and the checks and balances designed to regulate it. But for now, the administration appears confident that it acted lawfully — and decisively — in a moment of high-stakes global tension.