Waging war by tweet.
June 18, 2025
Robert B. Hubbell
The Framers of the Constitution understood that declaring war was a consequential decision that should not be entrusted to a single person. Accordingly, the Constitution grants Congress—not the president—the power to declare war. Under certain circumstances and for limited periods, the president can send the US military into conflict under an “authorization for the use of military force” that has been pre-approved by Congress in the form of a joint resolution.
On Tuesday, the American public and Congress learned that Trump has apparently committed US troops to the conflict between Israel and Iran. In seventy-two hours, the US position on the conflict has gone from “We are not involved” to Trump posting on Truth Social that
“[W]e now have complete and total control of the skies over Iran . . . .” [W]e know exactly where [Iran’s supreme leader] is. [But] we are not going to take him out (kill!), at least for now.” Iran must agree to “UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!”
For further details, see NYTimes, Trump Calls for Iran’s ‘Unconditional Surrender’ and Threatens Its Supreme Leader (Accessible to all.)
Seizing control of another nation’s sovereign airspace, suggesting the killing of its supreme political leader, and demanding “unconditional surrender” amounts to waging war.
JD Vance posted on social media that Trump was considering destroying Iran’s uranium enrichment capability, an action that could be accomplished only by the US dropping “bunker busting” bombs on Iran. JD Vance claimed that Trump had the unilateral authority to decide whether to attack another country. Vance wrote,
That decision [to attack Iran] ultimately belongs to the president.
Wrong. The decision to declare war belongs to Congress. Attacking another country to destroy its ability to build nuclear weapons and to kill its political leader is waging war.
Assuming for discussion that it is appropriate for the US to attack Iran and kill its political leader, the Constitution provides a clear mechanism for authorizing the Commander-in-Chief to wage war. JD Vance’s claim that the decision to attack Iran “belongs to the president” ignores the Constitution—a tactic that is the standard operating procedure of the Trump administration.
In addition to Trump's tweets, there is other evidence that the US is currently engaged in supporting Israel’s military operations against Iran. See the following clip of Tucker Carlson interviewing Ted Cruz about the US military’s role in supporting Israel. YouTube, Tucker vs. Ted Cruz on War with Iran. (Although citing to Tucker Carlson is unusual for this newsletter, the interview clip is worth two minutes of your time—I promise.)
For every president other than Trump, any move by the president to involve US troops in armed conflict has led to howls of protest in Congress and the media. See, e.g., this article in Politico from April 5, 2011: GOPers oppose Libya intervention.
In 2011, Senate Republicans opposed President Obama’s air strikes on Libya, sponsoring a resolution that stated, in part,
The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the [United States].
Yet on Tuesday evening, most of the coverage of Trump's threats to bomb Iran is limited to breathless repetition of “Will he, or won’t he?” rather than, “The president does not have the power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack.”
Apart from the constitutional infirmities of Trump's unilateral actions against Iran, waging war by tweet is stupid, undisciplined, and dangerous. Attacking another nation and threatening to kill its leader is serious business that should be decided through sober discussion with civilian and military experts.
Trump consulted with none of those experts. Instead, he surprised them all by committing the US to an action that may risk the lives and safety of US soldiers and civilians across the globe.
There is a movement in Congress to force Trump to seek congressional authorization for any attack on Iran. See Time, Israel-Iran: U.S. Lawmakers Move to Limit Trump’s War Powers.
Per Time,
Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) introduced a war powers resolution on Tuesday that asserts the requirement of Congress’ approval if Trump wants to commit armed forces to military action in the region. Outspoken progressive Reps. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), replied “Signing on” to Massie’s post. They and 12 other Democrats are cosponsoring the bill, according to Massie’s office. Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) introduced a companion war powers resolution in the upper chamber on Monday that would terminate the unauthorized use of U.S. armed forces against Iran, given that there has not been a declaration of war, which only Congress can issue.
In fairness, some (many?) Senators believe that the president has the authority for a single air strike on a country without seeking a declaration of war or congressional authorization of the use of military force. Why? Answer: Because, you know, back when the Constitution was enacted, there weren’t “air strikes” or “airplanes” or “missiles.” See Axios, Congress dodges preemptive confrontation with Trump over Iran. (The sarcasm is mine, but Axios does quote Senators who say that presidents get “one free airstrike.”)
Trump's reckless use of social media to wage war and circumvent the Constitution is another reason that concerned Americans must continue to protest his policies in widespread demonstrations across the nation on a regular basis. He will keep it up until his supporters in Congress fear the American electorate more than they fear Trump.
To be clear, I am not (a) defending Iran or its pursuit of nuclear weapons, or (b) commenting on Israel’s decision to attack Iran. I have addressed the unconstitutional actions of a rogue president who is conducting a war via social media rather than seeking congressional approval, as required by the Constitution. If attacking Iran’s nuclear processing facilities is the correct course of action, doing so within the parameters set forth by the Constitution will make us stronger, not weaker.
[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]
