As The Dallas Express previously reported, President Donald Trump launched airstrikes on three Iranian nuclear sites early Sunday morning, local time in Iran. Within hours, Congressional Democrats—many echoing identical talking points—accused him of violating the Constitution for failing to seek their approval.
What they didn’t mention: Congress hasn’t declared war since 1942. Not once — from Truman in Korea to Biden’s military and weapons support for Ukraine.
War Declarations Stopped in 1942 — But the Bombs Didn’t
The last time Congress formally declared war was June 5, 1942, against Bulgaria, Hungary, and Romania. Earlier that year, they declared war on Japan, Germany, and Italy.
That’s it. Six declarations. None since.
Yet the U.S. has engaged in dozens of military conflicts — from Korea and Vietnam to Iraq, Libya, and Syria — without any formal declaration of war. Most of those actions occurred with minimal protest from lawmakers or the media.
Presidents Have Acted Without Declarations for Decades
In 2011, President Obama led a NATO bombing campaign in Libya that lasted over six months. There was no vote in Congress and no new authorization.
In 2021, President Biden ordered airstrikes in Syria. Again — no Congressional authorization.
Both presidents cited Article II powers and old Authorizations for Use of Military Force (AUMFs) — military mandates passed in 2001 and 2002 to fight terrorism and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.
The legal playbook hasn’t changed. But the response has.
What They’re Saying This Time
All of the lawmakers below were in office in 2021 when Biden struck Syria. None raised constitutional objections then. Now, with Trump using the same framework, their tone has shifted:
-
Jasmine Crockett (D‑TX, since 2023):
“Congress must authorize military force before any president—including Trump—launches a strike.”
-
Hakeem Jeffries (D‑NY, since 2013):
“President Trump misled the country about his intentions, failed to seek congressional authorization for the use of military force and risks American entanglement in a potentially disastrous war in the Middle East. ”
-
Katherine Clark (D‑MA, since 2013):
“The power to declare war resides solely with Congress.”
-
Alexandria Ocasio‑Cortez (D‑NY, since 2019):
“The President’s disastrous decision to bomb Iran without authorization is a grave violation of the Constitution and Congressional War Powers.”
-
Sean Casten (D‑IL, since 2019):
“This is not about the merits of Iran’s nuclear program. No president has the authority to bomb another country that does not pose an imminent threat to the US without the approval of Congress.”
-
Rashida Tlaib (D‑MI, since 2019):
“President Trump sending U.S. troops to bomb Iran without the consent of Congress is a blatant violation of our Constitution.”
None of these lawmakers were in Congress in 2011 during Obama’s Libya campaign. All were in office during Biden’s Syria strikes in 2021 — and none of them accused him of violating the Constitution.
While the majority of criticism has come from Democrats, a few members of Congress from both parties have stood apart from their caucuses.
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) introduced a War Powers Resolution alongside Democrat Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA)—calling for a formal vote on the use of force.
And Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) publicly backed President Trump’s strike, saying it was “the right move” of eliminating threats to Israel or U.S. interests.
But those voices are the exception. The broader pattern is clear: Democratic leadership is condemning Trump for doing exactly what Democratic presidents have done for decades—with far less scrutiny.
Except These:
If a formal war declaration is now considered essential, here’s a sample of when it wasn’t — and Congress raised little or no objection:
-
Korea – Truman (D)
U.S. forces committed under a UN resolution with no congressional authorization. -
Vietnam – Kennedy/LBJ (D)
War escalated under the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution — not a formal declaration. -
Bosnia – Clinton (D)
NATO-led bombing campaign and deployments conducted without a war vote. -
Somalia – Clinton (D)
Combat operations expanded without new authorization, including the Battle of Mogadishu. -
Syria – Obama (D)
Airstrikes launched under the 2001 AUMF—never updated for Syria or ISIS. -
Libya – Obama (D)
Months-long NATO bombing campaign authorized by the White House alone. -
Ukraine – Biden (D)
Heavy US involvement, but has not declared war or authorized U.S. combat involvement.
No war declaration. No formal vote. No Constitutional panic.
Apparently, that only happens when the president is named Trump.
Diplomacy Was Attempted — And Rejected
Some critics claim President Trump launched strikes on Iran without first exploring diplomatic alternatives. But the timeline shows otherwise.
Days before the operation, President Trump publicly stated he would delay any decision for “within two weeks” while European-led negotiations in Geneva played out. He described diplomacy as a possible resolution and emphasized that a final decision had not yet been made.
However, within 24 hours of that announcement, Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi publicly stated that Iran would not negotiate unless Israel ceased its military operations, effectively shutting down the diplomatic path.
“Americans want to negotiate and have sent messages several times, but we clearly said that as long as this aggression doesn’t stop, there’s no place for talk of dialogue,” Araghchi told Iranian state media.
While debate can continue about whether further talks were viable, it is inaccurate to say diplomacy was ignored by Trump. It was publicly offered — and publicly rejected.
The Pattern Isn’t New — It’s Just Easier to Ignore
In 1990, as President George H.W. Bush prepared for war in Iraq, Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell reminded the country:
“Under the Constitution the President has no legal authority to commit the U.S. to war. Only Congress can do that.”
Still, Bush moved forward without a vote — just like Truman, Johnson, Reagan, Clinton, and Obama. The War Powers Act, passed in 1973 to limit unilateral military action, has rarely been enforced.
As Time reported then, even Congress avoids invoking it “at the risk of appearing to stand in the way of American troops on the march.”
So when lawmakers act shocked by Trump’s use of force, it’s worth asking:
Where was that urgency when it wasn’t Trump?
What Makes This Strike Different — And What Doesn’t
Critics argue this strike is unique because it hit Iranian nuclear sites, carried a greater risk of escalation, and lacked coalition backing.
But presidents have struck high-value targets before.
Obama acted without a vote in Libya.
Biden struck in Syria without a new AUMF.
Trump is reportedly citing the same legal tools — including the 2001 AUMF — to justify his actions. And while this strike may carry greater consequences, the constitutional process hasn’t changed. The real difference isn’t legal. It’s political.
The Constitution Didn’t Change — Just Who’s Quoting It
Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the power to declare war. But for more than 80 years, that power has gone unused.
Presidents today rely on two aging AUMFs:
-
2001 AUMF — passed to target those responsible for 9/11
-
2002 AUMF — originally intended to authorize war in Iraq
Both remain active. Both have been used by Democrats and Republicans alike.
“Congress has largely ceded its war powers,” the Congressional Research Service concluded in 2023. “Presidents have used a mix of AUMFs and Article II authority with little resistance.”— CRS RL31133
Congress could repeal those laws, pass updated authorizations, or demand stricter limits. But it hasn’t — even when its own party is in control.
Bottom Line
President Trump didn’t bend the rules. He followed the same path used by nearly every president for decades.
The Constitution hasn’t changed.
The legal framework hasn’t changed.
Only who sits as President.