The President Doesn’t Need Permission to Defend America
The Constitution does not require Congress to approve every defensive strike.
by Mark Goldfeder and John Spencer
March 7, 2026, 10:22 PM
On Thursday Congress will vote to limit President Trump’s ability to carry out further attacks in Iran. The criticism surrounding the launch of Operation Epic Fury, mostly from the left, follows a predictable script: “No declaration of war.” “No vote.” “Unconstitutional.” Some of it is sincere, some of it reflects selective readings of history. But the premise that a president is legally paralyzed when Americans are under threat unless Congress grants advance permission is entirely wrong, and has never been how the constitutional system operates.
If Iran or its proxies are attacking U.S. forces, targeting Americans abroad, or setting the conditions for imminent harm, the President does not need to wait for a roll call vote to defend the country. Article II vests the President with Commander in Chief authority precisely because national defense sometimes requires speed, secrecy, and unity of command. Congress has long structured statutory frameworks around that reality.
This is not an “imperial presidency.” It is the basic design of American constitutional defense powers. For decades, executive branch lawyers of both parties have articulated the same principle: the President may use force unilaterally when he reasonably determines it serves important national interests and does not rise to the constitutional level of a major, prolonged war.
Presidents of both parties have acted under this framework when U.S. personnel and core national interests were threatened. Debate has often followed. That tension is not constitutional breakdown, it reflects the separation of powers functioning exactly as intended.
https://spectator.org/the-president-doesnt-need-permission-to-defend-america/
