Trump’s “History and Tradition” Defense for Iran Strike Questioned

House Speaker Mike Johnson defended President Trump’s precision strike on Iranian nuclear sites by invoking “history and tradition of similar military actions under presidents of both parties,” a defense being questioned by lawmakers critical of the strike’s legality and lack of congressional approval. “Operation Midnight Hammer,” a massive B-2 bomber strike on Saturday, hit Fordo, Natanz, and Isfahan. While Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President Vance defended the action as a limited, targeted effort against nuclear weaponization, the unilateral nature has sparked controversy.
Rubio explained on “Face The Nation” that the strike aimed to “degrade and/or destroy three nuclear sites related to their nuclear weaponization ambitions.” Vance, on “Meet The Press,” cited the President’s “clear authority” to prevent WMD proliferation, assuring that this engagement would be decisive.
However, the lack of congressional consultation has drawn sharp criticism. Republican Rep. Thomas Massie, co-author of a bipartisan War Powers Resolution, lambasted the administration on “Face The Nation,” arguing that “no imminent threat to the United States” existed to justify bypassing Congress. He criticized lawmakers for not addressing the issue before the strike.
Speaker Johnson, however, quickly voiced his support for Trump on X, stating that “leaders in Congress were aware of the urgency” and the “imminent danger outweighed the time it would have taken for Congress to act.” He also maintained Trump’s respect for Congress’s Article I powers. Nevertheless, top Democrats, reportedly kept in the dark until after the operation, labeled the strike illegal. Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) warned on CBS of increased risks for American troops and asserted that the scale of the attack constituted “hostilities” requiring congressional approval. Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) agreed, emphasizing the absence of an “imminent threat” to justify the heightened danger to U.S. forces.