Connect with us

World

‘Patently illegal’: Critics dispute legality of Trump’s Iran strikes

Published

on

‘Patently illegal’: Critics dispute legality of Trump’s Iran strikes

Washington, DC – As United States President Donald Trump lauded what he called the “spectacular military success” of the strikes he authorised against Iran, Democrats were quick to accuse him of overstepping his authority.

Numerous critics accused Trump late on Saturday of violating the US Constitution by launching military attacks against Iran’s nuclear sites without the approval of Congress.

“Trump said he would end wars; now he has dragged America into one,” Senator Christopher Van Hollen Junior said in a statement.

“His actions are a clear violation of our Constitution – ignoring the requirement that only the Congress has the authority to declare war.”

In the lead up to the US attacks, legislators from both main parties have pushed measures to compel Trump to approach Congress before launching any strikes.

Advertisement

The US Constitution gives Congress the authority to declare war or authorise the use of force for specific purposes.

Trump’s “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) base has also been vehement in its opposition to the US joining Israel’s war. It has pointed out that Trump won the election on the promise not to commit Washington to yet another war in the Middle East. They want Trump to focus on domestic issues, particularly the economy.

‘Grounds for impeachment’

Lawmakers’ authority over the military was further enshrined in the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which curbed the president’s war-making powers.

Progressive Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said Trump violated the constitution and the War Powers Resolution.

“He has impulsively risked launching a war that may ensnare us for generations. It is absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment,” she said.

Advertisement

The president is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, so he can order attacks, but his decisions must be within the guidelines of what is authorised by Congress.

However, the president can order the military in the case of a “sudden attack” or to respond to emergencies.

Several Democrats were quick to note that Iran’s nuclear facilities, which have been operating for years, did not pose an imminent threat to the US.

The US intelligence community confirmed in an assessment in March that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon.

Trump has increasingly relied on executive powers in governing domestically, and now he appears to be sidelining Congress in his foreign policy.

Advertisement

But with Republicans in control of the Senate and the House of Representatives, lawmakers have few tools to influence his military decision. Impeachment is almost out of the question.

Lawmakers have introduced bills under the War Powers Resolution to ban attacks on Iran without the approval of Congress, but Trump is likely to veto the proposals if they pass.

Congress could overturn the veto with two-thirds majorities in the House and the Senate, but Trump’s strikes have enough support to make that outcome unlikely.

The US president has not provided a legal justification for the strikes, but he is likely to argue that he was responding to an urgent situation or cite an existing military authorisation.

Advertisement

In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks in 2001, Congress passed a law allowing then-President George W Bush to launch what would become the global “war on terror”.

Millions of people have been killed and societies devastated due to the US wars on Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, among others, waged as part of the so-called “war on terror”. It has also cost trillions of dollars and the lives of thousands of US soldiers.

In 2002, lawmakers approved another authorisation to allow the invasion of Iraq a year later.

These laws, known as the Authorisation for Use of Military Force (AUMF), remain in place, and previous presidents have invoked them to justify attacks that were not specifically approved by Congress.

Brian Finucane, a senior adviser with the US programme of the International Crisis Group and former State Department lawyer, said the attack on Iran is “patently illegal”.

Advertisement

“Even under the prevailing executive branch doctrine, this is likely to constitute ‘war’ requiring congressional authorization,” he wrote in a social media post.

Key progressive Senator Bernie Sanders was speaking at a rally in Oklahoma when Trump announced the attack.

Advertisement

As Sanders told the crowd about the US strikes, attendees started chanting: “No more war!”

“It is so grossly unconstitutional,” he said. “All of you know that the only entity that can take this country to war is the US Congress; the president does not have that right.”

Former Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said lawmakers will be “demanding answers” from the administration.

“Tonight, the President ignored the Constitution by unilaterally engaging our military without Congressional authorization,” she said in a social media post.

Advertisement

World

Mexico pyramid shooter who took hostages and killed 1 is identified

Published

on

Mexico pyramid shooter who took hostages and killed 1 is identified

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

A gunman who fatally shot a Canadian tourist and wounded more than a dozen others atop a historic pyramid in Mexico on Monday has been identified, according to officials.

Authorities identified the gunman as 27-year-old Julio Cesar Jasso, a Mexican national, according to a state official who spoke anonymously because they were not authorized to discuss the case publicly.

Jasso later died by suicide after turning the gun on himself, and security officials found a gun, a knife and ammunition. Authorities said he acted alone, with the State of Mexico government confirming he was the sole assailant on Monday night.

Officials said seven of the victims were struck by gunfire, while others were hurt in the chaos as people scrambled to get down from the pyramids, with some falling during the panic.

Advertisement

EX-TV REPORTER ALLEGEDLY TURNED ROADSIDE GUNMAN, GRILLED VICTIMS ON ETHNICITY BEFORE OPENING FIRE

The Pyramid of the Moon and the Pyramid of the Sun are seen along with smaller structures lining the Avenue of the Dead in Teotihuacan, Mexico, on March 19, 2020. A gunman killed a Canadian tourist and injured several others before taking his own life at the popular site, authorities said Monday. (Rebecca Blackwell/AP)

Those hospitalized included tourists from several countries, among them the United States, Colombia, Russia, Brazil and Canada, authorities said. The victims ranged in age from 6 to 61.

Footage circulating in local media appears to show the suspect positioned atop the structure as visitors rushed for safety below, with gunfire echoing across the site.

Police and forensic workers stand on a pyramid after authorities said a gunman opened fire in Teotihuacan, Mexico, Monday, April 20, 2026. (AP Photo/Eduardo Verdugo)

Advertisement

The Teotihuacan complex, located just outside Mexico City, is one of the country’s most visited archaeological landmarks, drawing millions of international visitors each year to its towering pre-Hispanic structures.

MOSCOW-BORN GUNMAN DEAD AFTER KYIV SHOOTING RAMPAGE LEAVES AT LEAST 6 DEAD, 14 WOUNDED: ZELENSKYY

The shooting took place shortly after 11:30 a.m. when dozens of tourists were at the top of the Pyramid of the Moon.

Security measures at the site have changed in recent years, with routine entry screenings no longer consistently in place, according to a local guide.

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum wrote on social media that the shooting would be investigated and that she was in touch with the Canadian Embassy.

Advertisement

SUSPECTED BLUE CITY GUNMEN KILL INNOCENT GIRL IN REVENGE SHOOTING AT HOME: SHERIFF

“What happened today in Teotihuacán deeply pains us. I express my most sincere solidarity with the affected individuals and their families,” she wrote.

Anita Anand, Canada’s foreign affairs minister, said on X that as a “result of a horrific act of gun violence, a Canadian was killed and another wounded in Teotihuacán” and that her “thoughts are with their family and loved ones.”

People visit the Pyramid of the Sun in the pre-Hispanic city of Teotihuacan near Mexico City, Mexico, on March 21, 2024, following the spring equinox. (Henry Romero/Reuters)

Later in the evening, U.S. Ambassador to Mexico Ronald Johnson also expressed “deep concern” and sadness over the deaths and numerous injuries, and said in a post on X that the U.S. is “ready to provide support as needed while Mexican authorities continue their investigation.”

Advertisement

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The National Institute of Anthropology and History said in a statement that the Teotihuacán archaeological site will remain closed until further notice.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Continue Reading

World

Appetite among NATO members to join Iran war ‘very limited’, says Eide

Published

on

Appetite among NATO members to join Iran war ‘very limited’, says Eide

Norway has pushed back against criticism from US President Donald Trump over what he described as “zero” European support in the conflict with Iran.

ADVERTISEMENT


ADVERTISEMENT

“NATO is a defensive alliance. It is not an attack alliance,” Norway’s Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide told Euronews’ Europe Today flagship morning show.

Eide said NATO members are focused on safeguarding key global trade routes, including keeping the Strait of Hormuz open. “NATO countries are doing something, but it’s not as a party to a conflict,” he added.

Trump has repeatedly criticised NATO allies for not backing Washington in the Iran conflict. He raised the issue again during a White House meeting earlier this month with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte.

Advertisement

Eide argued that there had been no prior preparation or consensus within the alliance. As a result, there is “very limited appetite” among member states to join the war.

He said that while both the US and Iran may have reasons to end the conflict, “the sides are far apart”, with negotiations hindered by opposing demands.

On Monday, Trump said the United States would maintain its blockade of Iranian ports until Tehran agrees to a peace deal.

Still, Eide pointed to signs of “some progress”, noting the broader global impact of the conflict. “This is not only an issue for the two sides, but it affects the whole world economy,” he said.

Addressing a European diplomatic push to establish a Palestinian state, Eide reiterated support for a two-state solution based on long-standing United Nations principles. However, he acknowledged that such an outcome is “not around the corner”.

Advertisement

He added that a two-state solution is also in Israel’s interest, describing it as “the only viable solution for real peace in a very troubled region”.

Norway, alongside Spain and Ireland, recognised the State of Palestine in 2024.

Continue Reading

World

Iran War Live Updates: Trump Officials and Iran Plan New Talks Despite Mixed Messages

Published

on

Iran War Live Updates: Trump Officials and Iran Plan New Talks Despite Mixed Messages

The United States military last week extended its blockade on vessels coming in and out of Iranian ports to the waters of the wider world, declaring that it would pursue any ship aiding Iran, regardless of location on the high seas or flag.

The U.S. “will actively pursue any Iranian-flagged vessel or any vessel attempting to provide material support to Iran,” Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Thursday, noting that the American troops beyond the Middle East will engage in operations to thwart Iranian shipping.

The extension of the blockade comes as the economically vital Strait of Hormuz remains all but closed to commercial traffic and the two-week cease-fire between the United States and Iran nears an end. The move aligns longstanding American economic policies targeting Iran with the current military campaign against it, maritime and military law experts say.

But it raises a host of legal and practical questions.

“War is a messy thing not just on the combat side but under national and international law,” said James R. Holmes, chair of maritime strategy at the Naval War College.

Advertisement

“From a legal standpoint, a blockade is an act of war, so the blockade probably is legal to the extent Operation Epic Fury is,” he said using the name of the U.S. military campaign against Iran.

Since Congress has not declared war against Iran, no formal state of war exists between the United States and the Islamic Republic. But Mr. Holmes noted that “undeclared wars are more the rule than the exception in U.S. history,” with joint resolutions of Congress, United Nations Security Council resolutions and NATO decisions invoked to justify fighting.

“This campaign may be more unilateral than most, but it is not without precedent,” he said.

Under international law, the legality of the blockade is “more ambiguous,” said Jennifer Kavanagh, a senior fellow and director of military analysis at Defense Priorities, a foreign policy think tank in Washington.

A state-organized rally in support of the supreme leader Mojtaba Khamenei in Tehran on Friday.Credit…Arash Khamooshi for The New York Times

For a blockade to be legal, Ms. Kavanagh said, it must be “effective,” meaning that it is both enforceable and enforced. Some would argue that a “‘global blockade’ is not permissible in conception” because it is overly broad, she said.

Advertisement

Still, expansive blockades have taken place throughout history, including during World War II, when states enforced naval blockades worldwide other than in neutral territorial seas. Over the centuries before that, the British blockaded France throughout the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars, and during the War of American Independence, the colonies and their allies raided British shipping as far away as the Indian Ocean.

Enforcing expansive blockades is difficult, however.

“The seven seas are a big place, and the largest navy or coast guard is tiny by comparison,” Mr. Holmes said. Whether the U.S. blockade ultimately is deemed “effective,” legally speaking, will depend on whether the U.S. has enough assets like ships, aircraft, boarding crews and intelligence gathering to enforce it.

The blockade does not have to be “airtight” to meet the legal test, Mr. Holmes said, and assessing its effectiveness will be tough for outside observers in any case.

Enforcement may also have to be somewhat selective, he suggested.

Advertisement

“Now, it is possible our leadership might quietly let a ship proceed when it suits the national interest,” Mr. Holmes said. “For instance, with a summit coming up between President Trump and General Secretary Xi” — Mr. Trump is to meet with China’s leader, Xi Jinping, in May — “Washington might not want to ruffle feathers by obstructing China’s oil imports.”

The expanded blockade is part of a longstanding economic campaign against Iran, but it represents something of a tactical change for the Trump administration.

Earlier in the war, the United States temporarily lifted sanctions on Iranian oil at sea to ease the pressure on global energy prices. And before imposing a blockade on Iranian ports last week, the U.S. allowed Iranian tankers to transit the Strait of Hormuz for the same reason.

Now Washington seems to be returning its focus to keeping pressure on Iran.

“The blockade is a wartime extension of existing U.S. economic sanctions against the Iranian regime,” said James Kraska, professor of international maritime law and a visiting professor at Harvard Law School. In peacetime, he said, the sanctions were a “powerful tool to weaken the Iranian economy.” Now, he said, the blockade serves as a “kinetic expansion.”

Advertisement

General Caine’s announcement about the expanded naval blockade came one day after Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced “Operation Economic Fury,” an effort he called the “financial equivalent” of a bombing campaign. It includes secondary sanctions on institutions internationally, like banks, that have dealings with Iran.

The expanded blockade “marks a notable escalation by the United States,” said Ms. Kavanagh.

Still, she said, it is unlikely to significantly change Iranian calculations.

“For Iran, this war is existential and it is not going to cave easily or quickly,” she said. “Economic pressure may work over the very long term, but Trump seems too impatient for a deal to wait it out.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending