Trump in legal trouble after attacking Iran, what is the future

Iran sat at the table to discuss its nuclear program despite the objections of the United States. There was some kind of agreement on the issue. In the meantime, Israel attacked Tehran on Saturday morning (February 28) with a stubborn decision. Washington admitted to participating in it. Since then, President Donald Trump has said that US forces have been attacking various installations in the Islamic Republic. This has raised questions about whether the Republican head of government is actually violating the country's constitution.

Legal experts have already expressed doubts about Trump's constitutional authority to launch a new military operation against Iran without congressional approval, especially if it turns into a protracted conflict.

Attacks such as the US bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities last summer and the military capture of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro in January have also brought to the fore the scope of executive authority and presidential power.

Multiple sources said the White House has not presented any legal justification to the public, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio has not given a full explanation to members of Congress.

Christopher Anders, a lawyer and national security expert for the American Civil Liberties Union, said Trump violated the Constitution by attacking Iran. Because the Constitution is very clear about who has the authority to declare war and send US military personnel to war — and that authority belongs only to Congress.

Anders added that President Trump has attempted to usurp this power without first seeking approval from Congress. The Constitution clearly states that only Congress can declare or authorize war.

“This is clearly a war. You don’t have to take my word for it — Trump himself says it is a war,” said Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University and a scholar at the libertarian think tank Cato Institute.

In a message announcing the attacks early Saturday, the president said: “The Iranian regime is on a killing spree. Brave American lives may be at stake and we may suffer losses. That’s what happens often in war, but we’re not doing it for the present. We’re doing it for the future, and that’s a noble goal.

Although only Congress can declare or authorize war, Trump and other presidents have consistently invoked Article II of the Constitution, which gives the commander in chief the authority to conduct military operations abroad that are necessary to protect U.S. national interests.

Moreover, the Supreme Court has shown a liberality in authorizing Trump’s broad use of power, most notably in its 2024 impeachment ruling. A senior White House official said at the time that the ruling played a role in the analysis of whether to proceed under Article II when the United States attacked Iran last summer.

More recently, Article II was used in part to legally justify the U.S. military operation to capture Maduro. The Justice Department issued a confidential legal opinion (later redacted) stating that Trump is not limited by domestic law when conducting law enforcement operations abroad.

What if the conflict drags on?

A memo from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel argued that the scope, purpose, and duration of the Maduro operation did not amount to a “war” in the constitutional sense, according to one source, and therefore did not require congressional authorization.

Questions of scope, purpose, and duration will also arise with any new action against Iran. Trump described the military operation in his video message as “large and ongoing.” According to two sources, the U.S. military is planning an attack that could last several days.

The Justice Department has presented a series of controversial arguments to support such an attack, said Steve Vladek, a Supreme Court analyst and professor at Georgetown University Law Center. But the basis of those arguments was the claim that the attacks were limited in scope and unlikely to spark a full-scale war.

Vladek added that even if this were a legal argument rather than a policy one, it would be difficult to take seriously in the current context.

Former President George H.W. Bush used Article II to oust Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega, President Barack Obama used airstrikes in Libya, and Trump used Article II during his first term to take action against Iran and Syria.

In 2018, the Trump administration’s Office of Legal Counsel wrote about the airstrikes in Syria, “While the United States is not the world’s policeman, its growing power has increased its regional interests and the threat to national interests from foreign chaos.”

Both Democratic and Republican administrations have also repeatedly pushed back on authorizing the 2002 Iraq War. A previous authorization to take action against al-Qaeda and related groups has also been used outside the context of the post-9/11 era.

Regarding the new US strike, Somin said, "I think the rationale for it is debatable. I certainly wouldn't shed a tear if the Iranian regime were to be overthrown. It's a terrible regime, our enemy and so on; but here's the thing: