“Operation Midnight Hammer,” the Trump administration’s recent precision strike on Iranian nuclear facilities, has ignited a fervent constitutional debate, with lawmakers questioning the legality of the action taken without congressional approval. On Saturday, a formidable force of over 125 aircraft, including B-2 bombers, delivered 75 precision-guided weapons to the Fordo, Natanz, and Isfahan nuclear sites. Administration officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President Vance, swiftly defended the strikes as a “limited, targeted engagement” aimed at dismantling Iran’s nuclear weaponization capabilities, explicitly denying any intent for broader conflict or regime change.
Secretary Rubio stated on CBS’s “Face The Nation” that the operation was “designed to degrade and/or destroy three nuclear sites related to their nuclear weaponization ambitions.” Vice President Vance further elaborated on NBC’s “Meet The Press,” clarifying that the U.S. was engaged “at war with Iran’s nuclear program,” asserting the President’s inherent authority to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction. He sought to reassure a public “exhausted” by Middle East conflicts that this action would be decisive, contrasting it with prior “long-drawn out” involvements.
Despite the administration’s assurances, dissenting voices in Congress quickly emerged. Republican Rep. Thomas Massie, co-author of a bipartisan War Powers Resolution, criticized the lack of congressional debate, emphasizing on “Face The Nation” that there was “no imminent threat to the United States” to bypass legislative approval. He expressed dismay that lawmakers were engaged in fundraising instead of addressing critical constitutional matters.
Conversely, House Speaker Mike Johnson swiftly defended the President, asserting on X that “leaders in Congress were aware of the urgency of this situation” and that the “imminent danger outweighed the time it would take for Congress to act.” He also affirmed Trump’s respect for congressional authority under Article I. However, senior Democrats, including Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) and Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ), who were reportedly not pre-briefed, strongly condemned the strikes as an illegal act, arguing it increased risks for American troops and constituted “hostilities” demanding congressional consent.