متتبع أزمة إيران-الخليج 2026
CC
Events Archive
strikeMay 22, 2026

President Trump Doesn’t Need Congressional Approval for His Actions as to Iran

Summary

The Volokh Conspiracy Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent President Trump Doesn't Need Congressional Approval for His Actions as to Iran Congress can only stop Trump’s actions in Iran by passing a concurrent resolution of both Houses over Trump’s veto, or by declining to fund the war in next year’s budget. President Donald Trump is taking a lot of heat for the military operations he launched unilaterally as Commander in Chief of the U.S. armed forces against the Iranian pirates/terrorists: (1) striking Iran militarily, (2) closing tshe Strait of Hormuz to Iranian oil exports, and (3) aiming (I expect successfully) to force Iran into capitulation. In fact, what President Trump is doing today with Iran is nothing more than a long overdue exercise of U.S. military power, of the sort that Presidents Thomas Jefferson and James Madison engaged in, without congressional approval, against the Barbary Pirates from 1801 to 1815. The Barbary pirates were an early 19th century analog of the modern-day Iranian terrorist regime. They preyed on American and European trading ships and enslaved their crews. It is estimated that over 1 million American and European sailors were sold into slavery by the Barbary pirates during the centuries in which they preyed on American and European shipping. Robert Davis, British Slaves on the Barbary Coast BBC (February 17, 2011). The Barbary pirates sailed out of Libya and North Africa generally until France conquered Algeria in 1830. Congress never declared war against the Barbary pirates, but Presidents Jefferson and Madison rightly used their executive Commander-in-Chief powers unilaterally to cause American ships and marines to subdue them with the use of U.S. armed force. This defeated the Barbary pirates, and the Framing generation, which was still mostly alive from 1801 to 1815, acquiesced in the constitutionality of this unilateral presidential use of military force. The United States has fought only five declared wars in our history since 1789—the War of 1812, the Mexican American War, the Spanish-American War, World War I, and World War II. But U.S. Presidents, acting as Commanders in Chief, have unilaterally deployed our armed forces many other times. Presidents have deployed the U.S. military without congressional permission on at least 125 occasions like the one that subdued the Barbary Pirates (1801-1815). Some of those engagements have been quite bloody such as the Korean War (33,700 deaths in battle), the Vietnam War, for which congressional authorization was withdrawn from 1971 to 1975 (3,246 deaths in battle), and the overthrowing of Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi by President Obama, in 2011 (4 deaths including of a U.S. Ambassador). These engagements were not authorized but were paid for by Congress. John C. Yoo & Robert J. Delahunty, The President's Constitutional Authority to Conduct Military Operations Against Terrorist Organizations and the Nations that Harbor or Support Them. In addition, the U.S. has fought four undeclared wars with congressional authorization in my lifetime: the Vietnam War (1964-1971), the Gulf War (1991), the Afghan War (2001-2021), and the Iraq War (2003-2011). The gloss of history on the constitutional text supports everything that President Trump is now doing. It is settled constitutional law after 237 years of practice that presidents have the power to use the U.S. military without Congress's permission to subdue pirates, and terrorists, like the now dead Ayatollah Ali Khamenei who was quite simply a modern-day pirate. Iran has been a huge problem for the U.S. since its Islamic Revolution in 1979. Iran captured and held hostage the U.S. Ambassador to Tehran and more than 50 American embassy personnel from November 1979 to January 20, 1981. It killed 241 U.S. Marines with a terrorist attack on a U.S. military base in Lebanon on October 23, 1983. And for the last half-century, Iran has funded a host of Islamic terrorist organizations throughout the Middle East including Hezbollah (in Lebanon), Hamas (in the Gaza Strip), and the Houthis (in Yemen), all of which have attacked Israel and Saudi Arabia, who are American allies, as well as attacking U.S. military personnel in the Middle East. The Ayatollah Khamenei appeared to be planning to destroy Israel with a nuclear weapon, and Iran has been developing ballistic missiles that could hit Europe today and eventually, perhaps, the United States. The Ayatollah Khamenei routinely led crowds that denounced America as the "Great Satan" and led chants of "Death to America." Continuing to kick the can of dealing with Iran down the road as a problem was unwise behavior on the parts of the second President Bush, President Obama, and President Biden. President Trump is the first President since 1979 who has had the guts to stop Iranian terrorism, which is a modern-day form of piracy in the Strait of Hormuz, a critical chokepoint in the global oil supply. He should be loudly praised for doing so. The American blockade on Iranian oil exports is likely to eventually cause Iran to surrender unconditionally, which will cause the much-needed end of Iran's nuclear program and its efforts to charge tolls for ships passing in international waters off the Strait of Hormuz (something Iran of course has no right to do). China's Xi Jinping agreed at the just-concluded summit with President Trump that (1) Iran could not be trusted to have nuclear weapons, (2) Iran cannot charge tolls on ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz, and (3) Iran should immediately end its blockade of shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. The two most powerful militaries on earth are in complete agreement here. When regime change happens in Iran, as I expect it will if the U.S. persists, the U.S. can help Iran to pump much more oil and natural gas, as the U.S. is now trying to do in Venezuela having seized former Venezuelan President, Nicholas Maduro. And when that happens oil prices will likely tumble to $40 a barrel or so, which may cause Vladimir Putin's vicious and corrupt regime to end in Russia, thus ending the Ukrainian War on terms favorable to Ukraine. Americans need to be patient and to give the blockade time to work. Iran cannot live without 90% of its budget, which comes from oil and gas sales in the long run. The Constitution says that the executive power shall be vested solely in the President, as is the Commander-in-Chief power. From President George Washington's use of the army to put down the Whiskey Rebellion, to President Jefferson's and Madison's use of the navy and marines to put down the Barbary Pirates, to President Abraham Lincoln's use of the army and navy to win the Civil War, to President Harry Truman's use of the U.S. military to win the Korean War, to President Barack Obama's use of our air force to overthrow the terrorist regime of Muhammar Gaddafi in Libya, we Americans have from the outset construed presidential war powers to generally allow the President to take military action without prior congressional approval to put down terrorist threats or threats from pirates. Congress's powers to (1) declare war and (2) grant letters of marque and reprisal are powers to trigger the international treaty obligations of our allies as a matter of international law, and to grant privateers the power to seize enemy ships as prizes. They do not block the President from commanding armed forces to engage in the behavior discussed above. It would be unconstitutional for one or both of Houses of Congress to pass an Act to stop the Iran hostilities, given that the President alone has the executive power, which includes the Commander-in-Chief power. For more on the constitutional arguments in this post, see Robert Delahunty & John Yoo, Making War, 93 Cornell Law Review 123 (2007), as well as their other writings on presidential war power. Congress could, of course, constitutionally stop what President Trump is doing by cutting off funding for military actions related to Iran. But, for the practical reasons given above, this would be a foolish thing for Congress to do. Yes, domestic gas prices are temporarily high right now. But if President Trump sticks with the blockade, we will likely get regime change in Iran, and much lower oil and gas prices very quickly for the foreseeable future. Still, Congressional restriction of funding, unwise as it may be, would at least be within Congress's powers; a Congressional Act purporting to order the President to stop hostilities or to prematurely end the blockade would be outside Congress's powers. And it would wrongly end an important struggle with a group of pirates and thugs who do not have the support of the Iranian people.

Perspectives

Iranian Official

The Iranian government condemns the United States' unilateral military strikes and blockade of the Strait of Hormuz as flagrant acts of foreign aggression that violate Iran's sovereign rights over its territorial waters and resources. These hostile measures, undertaken without congressional authorization or international mandate, echo past imperial interventions and aim to strangle Iran's economy and force capitulation. Tehran affirms its unwavering commitment to defending national sovereignty through legitimate resistance against such external threats.

Israeli

President Trump's unilateral strikes on Iran, closure of the Strait of Hormuz to its oil exports, and push for regime capitulation constitute essential defensive action against an existential threat from Tehran’s proxy network—Hezbollah, Hamas, and other militias—that encircles Israel with missiles and terror infrastructure aimed at its destruction. Historical parallels to the Barbary pirates underscore the need for swift executive power to neutralize maritime and ideological predators without congressional paralysis that could enable Iranian nuclear breakout. Such measures directly safeguard Israel’s survival by disrupting the axis of expansion that views the Jewish state as its primary target.

Neutral

An opinion article on The Volokh Conspiracy states that the U.S. president may order military actions against Iran, including strikes and restrictions on oil exports via the Strait of Hormuz, without prior congressional approval. It cites early 19th-century operations against the Barbary pirates by Presidents Jefferson and Madison as precedent and notes that Congress could seek to limit such actions through a concurrent resolution or by withholding future funding. The piece compares the described Iranian activities to historical piracy but provides no independent verification of current operational details.

Western

President Trump has directed precise U.S. military strikes and naval measures to neutralize Iranian threats to maritime security and oil transit through the Strait of Hormuz, targeting regime capabilities that enable terrorism and aggression. These operations, executed under Commander-in-Chief authority, support the strategic objective of forcing Iranian capitulation while aligning with longstanding precedents for addressing state-backed maritime predation. Congressional involvement remains limited to post-action funding or override mechanisms.

Pro-Peace

Unilateral U.S. military strikes on Iran and closure of the Strait of Hormuz threaten severe civilian casualties, economic collapse, and humanitarian shortages affecting millions of ordinary Iranians already strained by prior sanctions. These actions risk repeating cycles of suffering seen in past interventions, with little regard for noncombatant lives or long-term regional instability. Diplomatic negotiations through multilateral channels remain a lower-cost path to de-escalation that could avert such human tolls.

Global South

President Trump's unilateral strikes on Iran, closure of the Strait of Hormuz, and push for capitulation exemplify U.S. neo-colonial overreach, disregarding Iranian sovereignty and the Global South's right to control its resources and waterways without external veto. By evading meaningful congressional checks—reducible only to a veto-proof resolution or future budget denial—these moves expose institutional failures that enable executive impunity, echoing 19th-century Western interventions against North African states now repurposed to justify dominance over energy routes. Non-aligned nations see this as a direct threat to multipolar order and self-determination.

Actors involved

USIsraelIranProxyRussiaChina

Sources

  • Steven CalabresiBy Steven Calabresi

    The Volokh Conspiracy Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent President Trump Doesn't Need Congressional Approval for His Actions as to Iran Congress can only stop Trump’s actions in Iran by passing a concurrent resolution of both Hou

See this event through different lenses

Compare how Western, Iranian, Israeli, Global South, and Pro-Peace perspectives frame this event.

Compare Perspectives

Community Notes

Community Notes

Loading notes...

Related events

strikeUnverifiedUSIranProxyRussia
1 source

According to Kpler data, four commodity vessels crossed the Strait of Hormuz on Monday—two exiting (one carrying petrochemicals and one empty) and two entering (a bitumen tanker and an oil tanker)—down from seven the prior day, with no very large crude carriers or liquefied natural gas tankers observed.

Yemen's Houthis stated they were imposing a naval blockade on Saudi Arabia. The UK Maritime Trade Operations agency reported receiving multiple accounts of a tanker struck by an unknown projectile in the strait, while Greek shipping company Dynacom Tankers stated that two of its vessels were hit by projectiles off Oman and a third by a drone at Russia's Novorossiysk terminal.

Location: Strait of Hormuz
strikeUnverifiedUSIsraelIranProxy
1 source

U.S. and Iranian forces have conducted daily strikes in the Strait of Hormuz region following the collapse of an interim ceasefire, according to reports. The Trump administration has stated openness to diplomacy while announcing further retaliation for attacks on U.

S. personnel, and gasoline prices have risen amid the renewed exchanges. An analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies described the escalations as reflecting possible miscalculations by both sides, without confirmed evidence of their long-term effects.

Location: Strait of Hormuz
strikeUnverifiedUSIsraelIran
1 source

According to reports citing unnamed sources, mediators including Qatar, Egypt, and Pakistan presented a 10-day ceasefire proposal to the United States and Iran. The proposal reportedly calls for a halt to hostilities, resumption of shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, and efforts to preserve a memorandum of understanding signed by Washington and Tehran on June 18.

The US administration is reviewing the plan while preparing for possible failure, and Israel has been placed on high alert.

Location: Iran
strikeUnverifiedIran
1 source

Vessel transits through the Strait of Hormuz totaled 53 in the week through July 20, according to Lloyd's List Intelligence data, down from 157 the previous week, with tanker and gas carrier movements falling to 30 from 90. Kpler tracking showed daily crossings declining from averages above 20 vessels before July 15 to single digits by July 16 and remaining low thereafter.

These figures followed the reported start of a U.S. blockade and related maritime restrictions announced by Iranian authorities.

Location: Strait of Hormuz