Fact check: Have other presidents notified congress before an attack of another country

1. Summary of the results

The analyses reveal that presidential notification of Congress before military attacks is not a consistent practice and has become increasingly routine for presidents to act unilaterally. The evidence shows a mixed historical pattern:

Presidents who sought congressional approval:

• President George H.W. Bush asked Congress to authorize the use of military force against Iraq in 1991 ^[1]
• President George W. Bush sought congressional authorization for the use of armed force in response to the September 11 attacks in 2001 ^[2]

Presidents who acted without prior congressional notification:

• President Barack Obama did not seek advance approval from Congress before intervening in the Libyan civil war in 2011 ^{[1] [3]}
• President Trump conducted strikes in Syria in 2017 without congressional approval ^[3]
• President Trump did not notify Congress before attacking Iran, instead relying on his executive power as commander-in-chief ^[4]

The 1973 War Powers Resolution requires presidents to notify Congress within 48 hours of introducing armed forces into hostilities and to consult with Congress beforehand, though this requirement is often not followed in practice ^{[4] [3] [5]}.

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks several crucial pieces of context:

• The War Powers Resolution framework: The 1973 legislation established specific requirements for presidential consultation and notification, but presidents frequently circumvent these requirements ^{[4] [3] [5]}
• Constitutional tensions: There is an ongoing constitutional debate between executive power as commander-in-chief versus congressional war powers, with presidents increasingly asserting unilateral authority ^{[4] [3]}
• Bipartisan congressional pushback: Lawmakers from both parties, including Rep. Thomas Massie and Sen. Tim Kaine, have introduced resolutions to limit presidential military action without congressional approval, specifically regarding Iran strikes ^[5]
• Legal justification requirements: Presidents are required to submit legal justifications for strikes to Congress within 48 hours, though this is a post-action requirement rather than prior notification ^[3]

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question contains an implicit assumption that may be misleading:

• False premise of standard practice: The question implies that notifying Congress before attacks might be a normal or expected procedure, when the evidence clearly shows that "presidents' ordering military action without Congress' approval has become routine" ^[3]
• Lack of legal context: The question fails to acknowledge the existing legal framework (War Powers Resolution) that governs these situations, which could lead to misunderstanding about what is legally required versus what is politically expected
• Missing contemporary relevance: The question doesn't specify which recent events prompted the inquiry, though the analyses suggest this relates to recent Iran strikes by President Trump, which would provide important context for understanding current political dynamics ^{[4] [3] [5]}