Fact check: Why did Trump use US troops to attack Iran without congressional approval first... Is that unconstitutional?

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, President Trump did order US strikes on Iranian nuclear sites on June 21, 2025, without obtaining prior congressional approval ^[1]. The strikes targeted three nuclear facilities in Iran ^[2]. Senator Bernie Sanders and other lawmakers have characterized these actions as "grossly unconstitutional" due to the lack of congressional authorization ^[1]. However, some members of Congress were reportedly notified ahead of the strikes, though this notification does not constitute formal approval ^[1].

The legal framework governing such actions centers on the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which requires congressional oversight for military actions ^[3]. Legal experts indicate that there is no existing congressional authorization for the use of force against Iran, making any such military action subject to constitutional and legal challenges ^[4]. The strikes have generated mixed support from Congress, with ongoing debates about war powers and presidential authority ^[5].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks several crucial pieces of context revealed in the analyses:

• The strikes were specifically targeted at nuclear facilities, not general military targets ^{[1] [2]}
• Trump had previously approved attack plans but had not made final decisions on their implementation until June 21st ^{[6] [7]}
• Trump actually rejected more aggressive Israeli proposals, including a plan to assassinate Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei ^[8]
• The US is attempting to prevent the conflict from escalating into a larger regional war ^[8]

Alternative viewpoints on constitutionality:

• Supporters of executive power would argue that the President has inherent authority as Commander-in-Chief to respond to immediate threats
• Congressional hawks who support military action against Iran may view the strikes as necessary regardless of procedural concerns
• Defense contractors and military-industrial complex benefit from increased military engagement and would support expanded presidential war powers
• Lawmakers seeking to constrain executive power, like Bernie Sanders, benefit politically from positioning themselves as defenders of constitutional processes ^[1]

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question contains several assumptions that may not be entirely accurate:

• The phrase "attack Iran" is overly broad - the strikes specifically targeted nuclear facilities rather than constituting a general attack on Iran ^{[1] [2]}
• The question assumes the use of "US troops" when the analyses indicate air strikes on nuclear sites, which may not have involved ground troops
• The framing suggests this was an unprovoked action, while the analyses indicate this occurred within the context of an ongoing conflict that had already entered its "second week" ^[1]

The question does accurately identify the core constitutional issue regarding congressional approval for military action, which legal experts confirm is a legitimate concern given the absence of existing authorization for force against Iran ^[4].