Fact check: What does the Constitution say about a President bombing another country without using ground forces

1. Summary of the results

The Constitution creates a fundamental tension between congressional and presidential war powers that directly impacts bombing operations without ground forces. Article I grants Congress the exclusive power to declare war, while Article II makes the president the commander-in-chief of the armed forces ^{[1] [2]}.

The Constitution does not explicitly prohibit the president from bombing another country without using ground forces, but constitutional scholars argue that launching airstrikes without consulting Congress bypasses their constitutional authority to declare war ^[3]. This constitutional ambiguity has led to routine presidential military action without congressional approval ^[2].

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 attempts to bridge this gap by requiring the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of introducing armed forces into hostile situations and terminate military action within 60 days unless Congress authorizes it ^[2]. However, House Speaker Mike Johnson argues that the War Powers Act itself is unconstitutional and that presidential strikes fall within Article II commander-in-chief powers ^[1].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question omits several critical pieces of context that shape this constitutional debate:

• Congress has not formally declared war since 1942, making Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) the primary mechanism for approving military action ^{[2] [4]}. The 2001 AUMF has been criticized as too broad and outdated ^[2].
• Lawmakers remain deeply divided on presidential authority to launch airstrikes without congressional approval, with some supporting commander-in-chief powers and others demanding congressional involvement ^[4].
• Bipartisan opposition exists to unilateral presidential military action. Rep. Thomas Massie and Rep. Ro Khanna introduced a bipartisan War Powers Resolution specifically prohibiting unauthorized hostilities, emphasizing that the Constitution does not permit the executive branch to unilaterally commit acts of war against sovereign nations that haven't attacked the United States ^[5].
• The Office of Legal Counsel has stated that the 'declare War' clause may impose restrictions on presidential powers when military action rises to the level of a "war" ^[6].
• International law considerations are also relevant, as many international lawyers argue that unilateral U.S. military attacks would violate international law ^[6].

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question contains no explicit misinformation but presents an incomplete framing that could lead to misunderstanding:

• The question implies that ground forces versus bombing represents a meaningful constitutional distinction, when the analyses show that constitutional scholars focus more on whether military action constitutes "war" rather than the specific type of force used ^{[3] [6]}.
• The framing avoids the political reality that this debate benefits different political actors depending on their position. Congressional leaders who support expanded legislative war powers (like Massie and Khanna) benefit from emphasizing constitutional restrictions ^[5], while executive branch supporters benefit from broad interpretations of Article II commander-in-chief authority ^[1].
• The question omits the practical context that presidential military action without congressional approval has become routine, suggesting this is a settled constitutional practice rather than an ongoing constitutional dispute ^{[2] [4]}.