The Week Ahead June 22, 2025 Joyce Vance Jun 23 Tuesday will be the third anniversary of the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs, the case that stripped American women of their right to get an abortion. At the time, that felt like a new low in modern-day America. Since then, however, the country reelected Donald Trump to the presidency. On Saturday, Trump bombed Iran. Historians can debate whether or not it was the “right” thing to do. But he did not go to Congress for authorization first. Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war. But as John Bellinger III, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations explained, presidents have significant power “to order the use of military force to defend the United States and U.S. persons against actual or anticipated attacks.” They may also do so “to advance other important national interests.” Although it has sometimes attracted controversy, presidents from both parties have proceeded without a congressional declaration. There has never been a precise judicial determination of when the War Powers Clause of the Constitution requires Congress to act before a president can. But it’s clear presidents don’t require congressional authorization for every military step they take. There are some limitations, however. In a 2016 memo, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) explained, “The President’s power to employ military force abroad in the absence of specific prior congressional approval derives from his constitutional responsibility as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive for foreign and military affairs.” The White House has turned to OLC for opinions on the legality of planned military actions in the past, as President Obama did in 2011 in Libya. Obama authorized the strikes to protect the lives of pro-democracy protestors only after the United Nations had signed off. Even then, he subsequently called it the worst mistake of his presidency, despite it being the “right thing” to do, because of the chaos that ensued in the country as a result. OLC opined that defensive measures designed to repel a “direct and immediate military attack” are a basis, although not the only one, for a president’s use of military force without congressional approval. But a “‘possible constitutionally-based limit’ on such Presidential authority may exist where a planned military engagement constitutes a ‘war’ within the meaning of the U.S. Constitution’s Declaration of War Clause.” So, is this a war? It’s unlikely that DOJ will stand in Trump’s way, no matter what he wants to do. Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have carefully characterized the attack as a one-and-done exercise, not as a prolonged attack designed to create, for instance, regime change. But Trump took to Truth Social to countermand that carefully concocted image, writing, “It's not politically correct to use the term, 'Regime Change' but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!” That creates the appearance that Trump has plans that would require a congressional declaration of war. Bellinger explained that most presidents prefer to have congressional authorization before entering into anything sustained, or at least a previous declaration that they can rely on. There are also indications that this is not over. There is reporting that while Iran’s Fordo Nuclear Site was damaged, it was not destroyed. Iran may be able to reboot over time. Iran was still able to inflict heavy damage on Israel overnight after the U.S. strikes. It’s far too early to assess how this develops. Even if Trump had the constitutional authority to act, some international lawyers are arguing the bombing violates international law. Countries have the right to act in self-defense and to take steps to protect themselves from an “imminent armed attack.” Bellinger explained that even though “The United States has taken a broad view of ‘imminence,’” maintaining that argument here would be extremely difficult. That may explain why Trump said he acted based on different intelligence than what our own intelligence community provided him with. Trump might argue he was stepping in to protect our ally, Israel, but the success of that argument would depend on the legality of Israel’s strikes. The United States has not taken that path in the past. In 1981, during the Reagan administration, we were part of a unanimous condemnation of Israel for launching an attack on a nuclear reactor in Baghdad. In 2007, the Bush administration declined a request to participate in a strike on a Syrian reactor. But the legal determinations will turn on factual ones, including how imminent of a threat Iran posed to Israel. There are lots of twists here, both factual and legal, and we will learn more in the coming days. Rather than taking the safer course and going to Congress for authorization or at least briefing the Gang of Eight (a group of bipartisan Congressional leaders), reports indicate that Republicans, but not Democrats, were briefed. Donald Trump claimed the power to strike for himself and he acted. That’s the throughline for this administration from start to present. And although some Republicans claimed Democrats were not briefed because they would have leaked, that is belied by numerous administrations where the full gang of eight has been briefed on significant developments of high sensitivity. There is simply no basis for that allegation. I write to you a lot about the fact that where things start is not where they end up with the Trump administration. Here, we see that proposition on full display. Trump started by firing inspectors general without giving Congress the 30 days of notice required by law before doing that. Congress didn’t object. Trump kept going. He started dismantling executive branch agencies. Even though that tramples on Congress’ power of the purse, they didn’t do much more than whimper. Then the White House tried to tie receipt of funds Congress has set aside to help states with transportation infrastructure to promises to help with immigration enforcement. Still, Congress did nothing. And the Supreme Court? The Court that held that there was virtually nothing a sitting president could do that would violate criminal law? They haven’t exactly given the president reason to pump the brakes either. Which is how we find ourselves at this juncture. When you get away with pushing the limits of power time after time, this is where you end up. Republicans in Congress, many of whom lauded Trump as the president who would end all wars, were, for the most part, quick to fall in line. The White House was quick to put up a release showing that everyone from Speaker Mike Johnson to Alabama Senator Katie Britt, who encouraged people to “pray for peace” even as the president she supports attacked, to Representative Mike Lawler, who said, “War has not been declared, however, a Nuclear Iran has been prevented. I fully support the President’s decision,” had lined up behind Trump. Increasingly, it’s hard to write a “Week Ahead” column on Sunday nights, because so much of the crazy in this administration reveals itself over the course of each weekend. But there is a full legal docket ahead this week, which I’ll write about tomorrow night. In this moment, all eyes are focused on the fact that we have bombed Iran. We will not know what the long-term consequences of that action will be for some time. But two-week Don, the TACO president, sure showed them. The man who is too weak to take criticism and name-calling in stride, even though he does it relentlessly to others, the man who acts impulsively when challenged, remains in charge of the military and in control of the nuclear codes at this pivotal moment. We’re in this together, Joyce