מעקב משבר איראן-המפרץ 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

strikeUnverifiedUSIranProxy
1 source

PARIS: The head of the International Energy Agency said on Tuesday (Jul 21) that renewed fighting in the Mideast increases concerns over energy supplies but that the market still has cushions to absorb the impact. "The escalation in hostilities affecting the Strait of Hormuz and energy infrastructure in the region increases security of supply concerns and uncertainty over the market outlook," IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol said in a statement.

"For the moment, crude oil markets continue to benefit from several cushioning factors," he added, pointing to increased exports from several countries and Saudi and United Arab Emirates oil reaching markets by alternative routes. However, Saudi Arabia's main alternative route of using a pipeline to load tankers in the Red Sea port of Yanbu is under threat as Iran's Yemeni allies, the Houthis, declared they would blockade Saudi Arabia's ports.

Oil markets have for months feared that the Houthis would return to attacking shipping in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden - as they did during the Gaza war - cutting off yet more crude from global markets. The initial market reaction to the announcement by the Houthis was restrained, however, as Iran indicated that mediation efforts were still underway, calming investor jitters.

"Threats to the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, which has become increasingly important as a route to bypass the Strait of Hormuz, exacerbate these concerns further," said Birol, referring to the narrow passage between the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden. The IEA, in addition to advising its industrialised nation members, also helps them coordinate the release of their strategic oil reserves in reaction to market disruptions.

Birol noted that ongoing government releases from these reserves have provided considerable relief to markets, and that nations continue to hold ample reserves. However, he warned "there is no room for complacency on oil security" and pointed to a drawdown of available commercial inventories, with low refining activity contributing to a tighter supplies of refined oil products like petrol and diesel than for crude oil.

Birol noted that additional supplies of liquefied natural gas from the United States and Canada have offset about 70 per cent of lost supply via the Strait of Hormuz. However, further delays in resuming Gulf exports "will be felt by all LNG importers, including Europe as it looks to refill its gas storage for next winter", he warned.

Location: Strait of Hormuz
strikeUnverifiedUSIsraelIranProxy
1 source

Listen to this article in summarized format Brent crude futures rose $1.62, or 1.8%, to $90.84 a barrel by 1152 GMT. The front-month U.S. West Texas Intermediate crude contract , which expires on Tuesday, was up $1.37, or 1.7%, at $84.60. The more active contract for September delivery rose $1.

48, or 1.8%, to $83.96. "Lower exports through the Strait of Hormuz and concerns of potential supply disruption from oil coming through the Red Sea are moderately supporting oil prices," said UBS analyst Giovanni Staunovo. U.S. forces bombed targets in southern Iran overnight after President Donald Trump said that Tehran would pay dearly for the deaths of American soldiers.

Iran, meanwhile, targeted U.S. sites in Bahrain, Kuwait and Jordan. A tanker in the Strait of Hormuz reported being struck by an unknown projectile, forcing its crew to abandon ship and board a lifeboat, the United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations agency said on Tuesday as vessel crossings dropped further.

"The optimist may see the latest American attacks as a last attempt to strengthen the negotiating position before a compromise is reached and the Strait of Hormuz is reopened," an SEB Research note said. "However, the risk is a more prolonged stalemate, with continued uncertain energy flows, higher oil prices and recurring attacks.

" Limiting price gains, a senior Iranian official told Reuters that Tehran had received a proposal from mediators for a 10-day ceasefire in efforts to salvage the deal signed on June 17, intended to pave the way for a lasting agreement to end the war that began on February 28 with U.

S.-Israeli attacks on Iran. Yemen's Iran-aligned Houthis said on Monday that they would impose a naval blockade on Saudi Arabia, opening a potential new front against the U.S. and raising the threat to global energy supplies and trade beyond the Gulf.

"The threats of a naval blockade on Saudi Arabia by the Houthis are significant because they raise the risk of disruption to another major oil exporter," said Tim Waterer at KCM Trade. Meanwhile, U.S. crude oil and gasoline stockpiles were expected to have fallen last week while distillate stocks are likely to have risen, a preliminary Reuters poll showed on Monday.

(You can now subscribe to our ETMarkets WhatsApp channel) (What's moving Sensex and Nifty Track latest market news, stock tips, Budget 2025, Share Market on Budget 2025 and expert advice, on ETMarkets. Also, ETMarkets.com is now on Telegram. For fastest news alerts on financial markets, investment strategies and stocks alerts, subscribe to our Telegram feeds .

) Subscribe to ET Prime and read the Economic Times ePaper Online.and Sensex Today. Top Trending Stocks: SBI Share Price, Axis Bank Share Price, HDFC Bank Share Price, Infosys Share Price, Wipro Share Price, NTPC Share Price (You can now subscribe to our ETMarkets WhatsApp channel) (What's moving Sensex and Nifty Track latest market news, stock tips, Budget 2025, Share Market on Budget 2025 and expert advice, on ETMarkets.

Also, ETMarkets.com is now on Telegram. For fastest news alerts on financial markets, investment strategies and stocks alerts, subscribe to our Telegram feeds .) Subscribe to ET Prime and read the Economic Times ePaper Online.and Sensex Today.

Location: Iran
strikeUnverifiedUSIsraelIranProxyEURussiaChina
1 source

US stock futures rose, with Nasdaq futures gaining 1.4% and S&P futures up 0.5% as of 7:20 a.m. ET, led by semiconductor stocks after gains in Japan and South Korea. A report indicated TSMC plans price increases, while overnight events included a Houthi-imposed blockade on Saudi Arabia amid tensions involving Iran.

Trading showed higher commodity prices, a steeper yield curve, and a flat dollar, with upcoming data releases including the ADP weekly employment change and Philadelphia Fed non-manufacturing index.

Location: Arak
strikeUnverifiedUSIranProxy
1 source

Reports indicate ongoing US-Iran tensions into a tenth day, including a tanker strike in the Strait of Hormuz and Houthi threats to Red Sea shipping. US Central Command conducted strikes on Iranian command, missile, and air defense sites, while Reuters reported mediator proposals for a 10-day ceasefire and statements from both sides outlining conditions for halting attacks.

Bloomberg data showed Hormuz transits reduced to six vessels as of Tuesday morning.

Location: Red Sea