Kirsten Stokes
ST. JOSEPH, MO (News-Press NOW) — As tensions escalate in the Middle East, President Donald Trump’s authorization of a bombing campaign in Iran has reignited a national and local debate about the limits of presidential war powers.
News that circulated from last week’s bombing of Iran’s nuclear weapons has made St. Joseph residents question the president’s swift decision to send B-2 bombers to three Nuclear sites in Iran, including Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan.
“I think it’s pretty scary because we don’t know what’s about to happen. I pray that it stays where it needs to and doesn’t come into town,” said Toni Carroll, a St. Joseph resident.
Under Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, Congress holds the exclusive power to declare war. However, presidents have historically used their role as Commander-in-Chief to initiate military actions without a formal declaration of war.
Trump’s recent airstrikes on Iranian military targets were justified by the White House as a response to an “imminent threat†and framed under the 2001 and 2002 Authorizations for Use of Military Force. Critics argue that those authorizations, passed in the aftermath of 9/11 and the Iraq War, are outdated and stretched far beyond their original intent.
House Speaker Mike Johnson met with reporters at the White House on Monday, defending the president’s strikes in Iran, stating the War Powers vote in Congress is not ‘appropriate’ at this time while recalling presidents on both sides of party lines making parallel decisions.
A War Powers vote happens when Congress votes on whether to authorize or end a specific military action under the War Powers Resolution of 1973. It may be used to authorize the use of military force, revoke or limit a president’s ongoing military operations, or demand the withdrawal of U.S. forces from a specific conflict.
“For 80 years, presidents of both parties have acted with the same Commander-in-Chief authority under Article II,” Johnson said. “You had President Biden use it three times in Middle East operations. President Obama went on an eight-month campaign of bombing Libya to take down the regime there.”
On Tuesday, the President posted on Truth Social: “THE CEASEFIRE IS NOW IN EFFECT. PLEASE DO NOT VIOLATE IT!†However, just hours later, Israel accused Iran of launching new missiles and vowed to retaliate.
Tehran denied violating the truce, but the ceasefire remains in a precarious position, with Trump lashing out at both countries after his brokered agreement appeared to collapse.
Many Republicans in Congress appeared at ease after Tuesday’s confidential briefings were rescheduled for Thursday, largely due to ongoing ceasefire agreements between Iran and Israel.
“Israel, as soon as we made the deal, they came out and they dropped a load of bombs, the likes of which I’ve never seen before,†Trump said as he departed Washington for a NATO summit in the Netherlands.
Some argue, the president’s inherent powers allow for defensive military action, especially when U.S. personnel are at risk. But, in March, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard testified on Capitol Hill that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and that the country’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, had not authorized the nuclear weapons program. Which President Trump subsequently said was “wrong” as it pertained to Gabbard’s intelligence on the situation.
Assistant professor of History at Missouri Western State University, Dominic DeBrincat, said that presidents sidestep the War Powers resolution frequently.
“The War Powers resolution technically only applies to imminent threats to the U.S.,” DeBrincat said. “So with the enrichment of Uranium in Iran, their capabilities of possibly putting weapons together within 8 days was not necessarily an imminent threat, but the way Trump sidestepped the War Powers Resolution was by saying we don’t have an imminent threat, we are helping an ally. And there’s nothing in the Constitution that seems to limit any president from helping an ally. In this case, it’s Israel.”
Trump is not the first president to face criticism over military intervention without congressional approval. In 1986, Ronald Reagan, a Republican, ordered airstrikes in Libya in response to a terrorist bombing. Bill Clinton, a Democrat, launched missile attacks on Sudan and Afghanistan in 1998. More recently, Barack Obama, a Democrat, approved military intervention in Libya in 2011 without congressional backing, citing humanitarian necessity.
Each of these cases reignited conversations about the War Powers Resolution of 1973, a law intended to rein in presidential authority by requiring congressional notification within 48 hours of military action and withdrawal within 60 days unless approved. Compliance, however, has been inconsistent across administrations.
“As history has shown us since 1973, democratic presidents don’t take much of a stance on the validity of the War Powers resolution, but they still sidestep it,” DeBrincat said. “Republicans have been a bit more vocal about challenging elements of it as being too restrictive on their ability to handle the Armed Forces. Since 1973, every president has acted as if this is within their chief purview.”
Spending eight years in the US Navy, Ty Dejoinville said the decision was reckless and agitative.
“As a veteran, I’m (expletive deleted) that this has happened. It should have never happened. They didn’t provoke us; we are the aggressors.
Missouri lawmakers have offered mixed reactions. On June 18, Senator Josh Hawley, a Republican, defended the president’s right to take decisive action in the name of national security. He stated he “didn’t want war” with the Middle East, but sided with the president.
“I think we want to be careful there,” Hawley said. “I mean, it’s one thing to say to our ally Israel that, ‘Hey, we’re going to support your right to self-defense’. We should do that 100%. The president is very strong on that. It’s another to say to Iran ‘Look, we’re not going to bail you out’.”
Governor Kehoe, in an X post on June 21, after U.S. airstrikes, said, “We strongly support the President’s actions against Iranian nuclear facilities.”
As the debate rages in the Capitol, many are demanding answers not just about Iran, but about who gets to decide when the nation goes to war.
“My guess is, in terms of legal measures that are in place…they’re (Congress) not going to limit the president from acting the way he has thus far,” said DeBrincat.
Click here to follow the original article.
