Editorial: Trump's entry into Iran war left Congress MIA

Baltimore Sun Editorial Board, The Baltimore Sun on Jun 25, 2025

By clicking submit, I authorize Arcamax and its affiliates to: (1) use, sell, and share my information for marketing purposes, including cross-context behavioral advertising, as described in our Privacy Policy , (2) add to information that I provide with other information like interests inferred from web page views, or data lawfully obtained from data brokers, such as past purchase or location data, or publicly available data, (3) contact me or enable others to contact me by email or other means with offers for different types of goods and services, and (4) retain my information while I am engaging with marketing messages that I receive and for a reasonable amount of time thereafter. I understand I can opt out at any time through an email that I receive, or by clicking here

Americans can be forgiven for feeling a bit exhausted by the head-spinning pace of events in the Middle East. From calls for negotiation to sudden bombings and missile strikes, to a failed attack on a U.S. military base in Qatar then a promise of a ceasefire quickly followed by a claim that both Israel and Iran violated that ceasefire, the last few action-packed days have felt more like months.

But as questions continue to be asked about what just transpired — and, most importantly, about the prospects of Iran developing a nuclear weapon — there’s also a more basic inquiry facing the United States: Did President Donald Trump violate the constitutional authority of Congress to declare war?

The founders were famously leery of U.S. involvement in foreign wars and that’s why Congress, and not the president, is solely vested with that power. And while one can certainly recognize that the nature of warfare has changed over the last 237 years, Trump’s decision to launch an offensive war on Iran was not sudden.

There was an undeniable opportunity for consultation and to invoke the War Powers Resolution, the 1973 law that requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of military action. But is that obligation met simply by calling up a handful of Republican leaders after the fact? The point is to seek congressional approval, not to merely have them on speed dial.

Much of the build-up to U.S. direct involvement focused on Trump’s efforts to mediate a more peaceful resolution but it was also clear that the conflict generated much division within Republican Party ranks and particularly in the MAGA wing. A promise not to duplicate the “forever wars” launched by Trump’s White House predecessors has been one of the more unifying characteristics of his base — until, of course, it wasn’t.

Yet how easy it is to judge the U.S. invasion of Iraq two decades ago, for example, with the benefit of hindsight and unhappy experience. Did Trump just meet the moment? Perhaps. But even if he did, do we want future presidents to launch unconstitutional wars at the mere drop of a hat or push of a button?

You can bet Democrats will raise this issue. Indeed, they already have. But when it comes from high-profile Trump critics like U.S. Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia or U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, it sounds like the usual partisan politics. Just as telling is what happened when some back-bench Republicans raised some concerns as well. After U.S. Rep. Thomas Massie, a libertarian-leaning GOP member from Kentucky and frequent Trump critic, introduced a bipartisan resolution last week calling for an explicit declaration of war, Trump labeled him a “lazy, grandstanding, nonproductive” politician on his social media account and called for him to be defeated in the 2026 Republican primary.

That’s why it’s now up to GOP leaders to stand up and be counted. Admittedly, that’s a challenge politically, particularly if the bombing of Iran appears to have proven effective. One can assume Trump will react badly to any dissent including a suggestion that he seek legislative approval for just about anything. Yet the War Powers Resolution also limits how long the military can be deployed — specifically to 60 days unless Congress authorizes war or extends the length for military intervention.

Will the Israel-Iran war be resolved in two months? If there’s no further need for U.S. military involvement, the president will have sidestepped the constitutional question. And while it’s impossible to know for sure how talks will proceed (or even whether ceasefires will be respected), history strongly suggests further U.S. military involvement. Once again, it’s in the interests of all to address the matter, for Congress to speak up and perhaps even engage in floor debates about the wisdom of direct military intervention.

There are moments when presidents don’t have the luxury to seek congressional approval — when there’s an ICBM hurtling toward a U.S. population center, for example — but this isn’t one of those occasions. And just because presidents from both parties have failed to meet this obligation doesn’t make it right. It only makes it all the more urgent for constitutional authority to be respected and for Congress to claim its rightful role.

_____