A Familiar Pattern of Political Amnesia
In 2011, President Barack Obama launched a sustained bombing campaign in Libya—without Congressional approval. Many Democrats stood by him. In fact, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at the time actively dismissed the notion that Congress needed to be consulted.
During that operation, this author (a constitutional law scholar) represented a bipartisan group of lawmakers challenging Obama’s bypass of Congress. The lawsuit failed, as had previous challenges, due to courts repeatedly treating such disputes as “non-justiciable political questions.”
The same happened in 1999, when President Bill Clinton ordered airstrikes on Kosovo, ignoring the 60-day limit imposed by the War Powers Resolution (WPA). Courts refused to intervene then, too.
Even further back, in 1998, Clinton launched Operation Infinite Reach, striking targets in Sudan and Afghanistan without approval. Again—Democratic lawmakers said little.
So what’s changed? Only the president’s party affiliation.
The War Powers Resolution: Law or Political Theater?
The War Powers Act, passed in 1973, was intended to restrain executive war-making powers by requiring the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying U.S. forces and seek authorization if operations extend beyond 60 days, with an added 30-day withdrawal window.
By all reports, Trump complied: Congress was informed immediately after the strike. He now has up to 90 days to prosecute military action without needing a formal vote.
Presidents from Thomas Jefferson (against the Barbary pirates) to Obama (in Syria and Libya) have routinely exercised Article II powers as Commander-in-Chief to engage in short-term military operations without prior congressional authorization.
“The War Powers Act has long been a paper tiger,” says one former legal adviser to Congress. “Lawmakers don’t want the responsibility of declaring war, but they want the power to criticize it.”
Indeed, the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF)—passed after 9/11—has been stretched to justify numerous operations across the Middle East, including many that Trump’s critics supported when Obama was in office.
Legal Precedent and Political Realities
In Campbell v. Clinton, the D.C. Circuit refused to block Clinton’s continued bombing of Kosovo even after he bypassed the WPA’s 60-day rule. The court determined that such matters were better left to Congress and the president to resolve politically—not judicially.
If history holds, Trump can cite both legal precedent and constitutional tradition in defending his actions. As long as he completes the operation within the WPA’s time frame—or secures a follow-up authorization—he remains within his rights as defined by law.
What’s more, if the situation escalates into a broader regional war or a direct national security threat, Congress will be under immense pressure to authorize continued force, making current objections largely symbolic.
The Real Risk Isn’t Legal — It’s Global
There are undeniable strategic and humanitarian risks involved in striking a sovereign nation’s nuclear facilities. Retaliatory strikes from Iran or its proxies, disruption in oil markets, and potential cyberattacks are serious concerns. But from a constitutional standpoint, Trump’s actions follow the same contours as those of past presidents—Democratic and Republican alike.
The impeachment threats, then, seem less rooted in legal doctrine and more in partisan opportunism.
“This is all part of the Claude Rains School of Constitutional Law,” one observer quipped, referencing the Casablanca character who’s “shocked—shocked!” to discover gambling is happening, while pocketing his winnings.
Final Verdict: War Powers or Political Games?
Unless Trump violates the 90-day window under the War Powers Resolution, he’s acting within the same legal bounds that his predecessors used with impunity. To impeach him over this would be to ignore the decades-long bipartisan erosion of congressional war authority—a problem not caused by Trump, but enabled by Congress itself.
Whether one supports or opposes the strikes, one thing is clear: the current outrage says more about the players than the play. For now, the real test lies not in legalities, but in what unfolds next—on the battlefield, in diplomacy, and in the court of public opinion.
Jonathan Turley is a Fox News Media contributor and the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” (Simon & Schuster, June 18, 2024).
Original story is in Foxnews