The War Powers Resolution makes Presidential authority clear since 1973
An OPINION by Dylan Turner, Wellsville
Recent commentary surrounding U.S. military strikes has revived a familiar claim: that a president who orders military action without prior congressional approval is acting unlawfully. While this argument may be politically effective, it is historically and constitutionally inaccurate.
The U.S. Constitution designates the President as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces under Article II. While Congress holds the authority to declare war, the Constitution does not require a president to seek advance permission to conduct limited military operations, defensive strikes, or actions necessary to protect American lives and interests. That distinction has existed since the founding of the Republic.
President Thomas Jefferson ordered naval action against the Barbary Pirates in 1801 without a declaration of war. President Harry S. Truman committed U.S. forces to Korea in 1950 under his authority as Commander in Chief. Neither action was preceded by congressional approval, and both are now recognized as lawful exercises of executive power.
This precedent continued across administrations of both parties. Presidents Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Donald Trump, and Joe Biden all authorized military strikes or sustained operations without a formal declaration of war.
In many of these cases, Congress was briefed after the fact, not before. This approach aligns with the War Powers Resolution, which allows a president to deploy forces for up to 60 days before congressional authorization is required.
What is more concerning than the strikes themselves is the rhetoric surrounding them. When members of Congress—regardless of political affiliation or their personal views of the sitting president—label constitutionally supported actions as “illegal” or “unauthorized,” they risk misleading the public. Disagreement with policy does not justify misrepresenting settled constitutional authority. Doing so fosters unnecessary fear and deepens political division.
Congress retains powerful tools to provide oversight, including funding restrictions and legislative limits. What it does not possess is exclusive, real-time control over military responses to imminent threats.
Americans can and should debate whether a particular strike is wise. But honesty matters. Presidential authority to act in defense of the nation is not a loophole or an abuse—it is a long-standing feature of our constitutional system. Misrepresenting that reality does not strengthen democracy; it weakens informed public discourse.
