World
President or Congress? Who in the US has the power to declare war?
As United States President Donald Trump faces mounting global criticism for starting the war on Iran with Israel, he is also facing a battle at home with opposition lawmakers who have challenged his authority to conduct the conflict.
Democrats argue that Trump, a Republican, wrongly sidelined Congress to start the war on Iran and has failed to explain the reasons for it – or what the US’s endgame is. Trump’s cabinet says he has the right to order emergency measures in “self-defence” against an “imminent threat” posed by Iran.
list of 4 itemsend of listRecommended Stories
On February 28, the day the US and Israel launched their strikes on Iran, Trump described the actions as “major combat operations”, not a war. Indeed, the two allies code-named the strikes, in which Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and several other senior officials were killed in Tehran, Operation Epic Fury.
In early March, Republican senators and one Democrat rejected a Democratic-led war powers resolution by a vote of 53-47. It sought to halt further US action in Iran and essentially end the war. Supporters of the resolution argued that Trump had exceeded his constitutional authority by launching the war. Under Article II of the US Constitution, presidents are permitted to launch such attacks only in self-defence – in response to an immediate threat. Otherwise, Congress has the sole power to declare war.
Trump has justified the attacks by arguing that despite holding talks with Iran, he believed Tehran was planning to strike first – thus invoking the “self-defence” justification.
Since then, however, the director of the US National Counterterrorism Center, which advises both the president and the director of national intelligence on “terror” threats, has resigned over the war with Iran.
In a resignation letter posted on X, Joe Kent said he could not “in good conscience” support the war. “Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation, and it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby,” he said.
So who in the US ultimately has the power to declare war on another country?
Here’s what we know about what the US Constitution says:
Who has the power to declare war?
The US Constitution lays out a sharing of war powers between the president and Congress through a system of checks and balances.
But Congress ultimately holds the upper hand, a move calculated to rest decisions about war in the hands of the people’s representatives rather than in one person.
Under Article I, US lawmakers have sole power to:
- Officially “declare war” or grant authorisation for such a declaration
- “Grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal” – that is, to authorise private US actors to capture enemy vessels
- Make rules concerning the capture of enemy property on land and water
- Provide for the Army, Navy and related “militia”
- Control the “powers of the purse”, meaning only lawmakers can authorise funding for war efforts
Those powers were on display when the US Congress issued an Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) three days after the al-Qaeda attacks on New York and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.
Lawmakers also passed a similar resolution before the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
However, under Article II, the president has powers as commander in chief of the military and can decide how a war is fought. Additionally, the US president, in cases of a sudden attack on the US or an impending attack, may give directives for a military response in self-defence without first receiving congressional approval.
Have US presidents always stuck to the constitution?
Not really. US presidents have a long tradition of working around the legal guardrails in the constitution to push on with military action abroad while bypassing Congress.
In 1973, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution during the Vietnam War with broad bipartisan support after news leaked that President Richard Nixon had approved military action to expand the conflict into Cambodia without seeking permission from lawmakers. Like now, debates broke out over who had the power to approve military action abroad, leading to the vote.
The successful resolution mandated that a president may deploy the US military only after a congressional green light or in the case of an emergency, such as an attack on the US or its assets.
Even then, the president must notify Congress within 48 hours of commencing military action, and if there is no legislative approval for it, forces may not remain deployed for more than 60 days.
A recent example of a president who did not seek approval from Congress on war-related matters is former President Joe Biden. Observers argued that he in effect joined Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza without approval from lawmakers by fast-tracking arms shipments to Israel after the war broke out in October 2023.
In a 2024 report, Brian Finucane, a former war powers adviser at the US Department of State and an analyst at the International Crisis Group, argued that Congress had not done much to stop Biden from doing this due to broad support for Israel across party lines. However, the report warned that Biden’s government was setting precedents for future wars that could have negative consequences.
When Trump bombed Iran’s nuclear facilities on June 22 during the 12-day war between Iran and Israel, he did notify Congress of the strikes the following day. Classified briefings to explain the decision to Congress were postponed from June 24 to June 26, drawing widespread criticism from Democratic lawmakers.
Is Trump justified in launching strikes on Iran now?
Many analysts do not believe he is. Finucane’s predictions appear to be bearing out as Trump’s war on Iran amounts to a “dramatic usurpation of Congress’s war powers” not seen in recent decades, he noted in a report this month, just days after the first US-Israeli strikes on Iran.
Trump administration officials have also released conflicting statements about the aim of the attacks, ranging from “regime change” to ending Iran’s ability to continue a nuclear programme and manufacture ballistic missiles. Trump has also claimed he wants to “free” the Iranian people from a government he called brutal. Tehran is accused of massacring thousands of antigovernment protesters in January.
In a February 28 address after ordering the launch of the war, Trump stated that the US had decided to strike because Washington knew Israel was going to hit Iran and Tehran would retaliate against the two allies. This has since been called into question by the director of the US National Counterterrorism Center, Joe Kent, who has resigned from his post, stating, “Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation.”
United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres condemned the US-Israeli move. On February 28, Guterres warned that the attacks and Iran’s retaliation across the region would “undermine international peace and security” and called for an immediate end to the hostilities.
Analysts said the US also had no justification for striking Iran.
“The administration has not articulated any plausible claim for how the attack on Iran might be reconciled with Article 2(4) as an exercise in lawful self-defense in response to an armed attack or even a threat of an imminent armed attack,” Finucane wrote recently on The Contrarian website.
“Trump’s attack on Iran thus conflicts with and undermines not just the US constitutional order and its allocation of war powers but also the international legal order the United States helped establish in the wake of two world wars and the Holocaust.”
What does international law say about US-Israeli strikes on Iran?
Rights experts said Washington has violated international law in striking Iran.
For one, the US and Israel have been accused of targeting civilian infrastructure, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of civilians. The bombing of a girls primary school located near an army base in the southern city of Minab at the start of the war caused global outrage. The US said it is investigating the incident, but a preliminary US military investigation has confirmed what independent experts have said: A US Tomahawk missile appears to have hit the school, killing more than 160 people, most of them children.
On March 7, one week into the war, US air strikes targeted a desalination plant on Qeshm Island in the Strait of Hormuz. The strike, which Tehran branded a “flagrant crime” against civilians, cut off freshwater supplies to 30 surrounding villages.
Similarly, the US has come under fire for torpedoeing an Iranian warship filled with sailors while it was in the Indian Ocean near Sri Lanka. At least 87 people were killed, and scores were injured. Critics said the US submarine that fired on the ship ignored the Geneva Conventions, which state survivors from such an attack should be given assistance, something the submarine failed to do.
While some experts argued that the US was justified in hitting an enemy ship, others said targeting the vessel in international waters far from Iran potentially violated the UN Charter on prohibiting aggression.
Iran has also been accused of violating international law in its retaliatory strikes on infrastructure and US military assets in neighbouring Gulf countries.
Could Democrats block Trump from continuing the Iran war?
Several opinion polls have shown that most Americans do not support the US war with Iran. Estimates put the mounting cost of the war at about $11bn for the first six days alone. Overall, it is expected to be costing the US about $1bn per day since then. Globally, the economic blowback could be huge with the price of oil already surging past $100 a barrel.
After the Democratic-led resolution to curb Trump’s war powers was voted down last week in the Senate, however, opposition lawmakers will have to find other ways to counter Trump, analysts said, as the White House refuses to provide a clear timeline for the conflict.
One suggestion is that lawmakers wield the “power of the purse” by stalling approval for any additional funding for the war.
Democratic Representative Ro Khanna, who has been at the centre of the war resolution efforts, told the US news site The Lever that blocking funds is the only way to end the war.
“This war is costing taxpayers nearly $1 billion per day and burning through critical munitions,” Khanna said in a statement this week. “This kind of spending is unsustainable, and Americans are already feeling the consequences as gas prices soar and economic uncertainty mounts.”
Republicans currently hold narrow majorities in both chambers of Congress. Their 53-47 majority in the Senate means, however, that they are unlikely to attain the 60-vote threshold required to pass many types of legislation in the upper chamber. To do so, they would need at least seven Democratic votes, and Democrats could use these rules to block supplemental war funding.
This approach has had success in the past, including during the Vietnam War. Along with the War Powers Resolution, a Democratic-led Congress passed two pieces of legislation in 1970 and 1973 that banned the use of federal funds for US combat operations in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos, hindering Nixon, a Republican, in his war efforts. Congress also limited the number of US personnel permitted to be deployed in Vietnam.
Similar funding cuts were also passed in 1982 when Congress used the tactic to stop the overthrow of the Nicaraguan government as well as in 1993 when it ended the US military presence in Somalia.
World
How Cheap Drones Are Changing Wars Like the Ones in Ukraine and Iran
A 3-D rendering of an Iranian Shahed-136 drone, a device with two triangle-shaped wings attached to a central fuselage. It has an engine the size of a small motorcycle’s and carries 110 pounds of explosives.
Engine the size of a small motorcycle’s
Carries 110 pounds of explosives
One of the biggest takeaways of the war with Iran is that it has proven itself to be a surprisingly capable adversary against the United States. In addition to its willingness to go on the offensive, Iran has forced the U.S. and its regional allies to confront the rise of cheap drones on the battlefield.
Iranian drones, made with commercial-grade technology, cost roughly $35,000 to produce. That is a fraction of the cost of the high-tech military interceptors sometimes used to shoot them down.
Cheap drones changed the war in Ukraine, and they have enabled Iranians to exploit a gap in American defense investments, which have historically prioritized accurate but expensive solutions.
Countering drones has been a major priority for the Pentagon for years, according to Michael C. Horowitz, who was a Pentagon official in the Biden administration. “But there has not been the impetus to scale a solution,” he said.
In just the first six days, the U.S. spent $11.3 billion on the war with Iran. The White House and Pentagon have not provided updated estimates, but the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative-leaning think tank, estimated in early April that the U.S. had spent approximately between $25 and $35 billion on the war, with interceptors driving much of the cost. Many missile defense experts also fear interceptor stockpiles are now running dangerously low.
Here is a breakdown of some of the ways the U.S. and its allies have countered Iran’s drones, and why it can be so costly.
Air-based strikes
In an ideal scenario, an early warning aircraft spots a drone when it is still several hundred miles out from a target, and a fighter jet, like an F-16, is dispatched from a military base. The F-16 can then use Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System (APKWS) II rockets to shoot a drone from about six miles away.
A 3-D rendering of an F-16 fighter jet firing an APKWS II rocket from under one wing. Two to three rockets are fired per drone, as per air defense protocol. Two APKWS II rockets and an hour of F-16 flight cost approximately $65,000, a little less than twice that of the Iranian Shahed-136.
Two to three interceptors fired per drone
These types of defensive air patrols are cost-efficient, but haven’t always been available because of the vast scope of the conflict. Iran has also targeted early warning aircraft that the U.S. needs to detect a drone from that distance, according to NBC News.
The other option for detecting and shooting down drones is a variety of different ground-based detection systems, but these systems are all at a disadvantage, as their ability to spot low-flying drones is limited by the curvature of the earth.
Anti-drone defense systems
One ground-based defense system the U.S. and its allies have built specifically to counter drones at a shorter range is the Coyote. It can intercept drones up to around nine miles away.
A 3-D rendering of a Coyote Block 2 interceptor, which looks like a three-foot tube with small rockets at one end. Two Coyotes cost approximately $253,000 or about seven times that of the Iranian Shahed-136.
The Coyote is significantly cheaper than many of the other ground-based defense systems available to the U.S. and its allies and historically effective at defending important assets. But despite being both effective and cost-efficient, relatively few Coyotes have been procured by the U.S. military in recent years.
When Iran-backed militias launched attacks on U.S. ground troops in the region in 2023 and 2024, there were so few Coyotes available that troops had to shuffle the systems between eight different bases in the region almost daily, according to a report from the Center for a New American Security, a Washington think tank.
Ship-based anti-missile defenses
Many of the longer-range ground-based defense systems the U.S. and its allies can use to combat drones are more expensive, as they are designed to shoot down aircraft and ballistic missiles, not drones. A Navy destroyer’s built-in radar system, for instance, can detect drones from 30 miles away and shoot it down with Standard Missile 2 (SM-2) interceptors. As in the air-based strikes, military protocol stipulates that at least two missiles be fired.
A 3-D rendering of the deck of a Navy destroyer firing an SM-2 missile from a built-in launcher, which looks like a 15-foot missile launching from a grid of openings on the ship’s surface. Two SM-2 missiles cost approximately $4.2 million, about 120 times that of the Iranian Shahed-136.
This misalignment between America’s defense systems and current warfighting tactics started after the Cold War, when the anticipated threats were fewer, faster, higher-end projectiles, not mass drone raids.
Iran often launches multiple Shahed-136 drones at a time, given their low price tag. The drones are also programmed with a destination before launch and can travel roughly 1,500 miles, putting targets all across the Middle East within reach.
“This category of lower-cost precision strike just didn’t exist at the time that most American air defenses were developed,” said Mr. Horowitz.
Ground-based anti-missile defenses
The Army’s standard air-defense system is the Patriot. Typically stationed at a military base, it can shoot down a drone from up to around 27 miles away with PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement interceptors. Military protocol stipulates that at least two missiles be fired.
A 3-D rendering of a Patriot launcher loaded with 17-foot PAC-3 MSE missiles, which looks like a tilted shipping container with scaffolding. Two PAC-3 MSE missiles cost approximately $8 million, about 220 times that of the Iranian Shahed-136.
Patriot missile defense system
Air defense training teaches service members to prioritize using longer-range defense systems first to “get as many bites at the apple as you can,” but those are the most expensive, said Stacie Pettyjohn, a senior fellow and director of the defense program at the Center for a New American Security.
But a costly defense can still make economic sense to protect a valuable target, especially those that are difficult to repair or replace, such as the nearly $1.1 billion radar at a military base in Qatar and the $500 million air defense sensor at a base in Jordan that were damaged early in the conflict.
Ground-based guns
Finally, there is what one might call a last resort: a ground-based gun. When a drone is about a mile away or less than a minute from hitting its target, something like the Centurion C-RAM can begin rapidly firing to take down the drone.
A 3-D rendering of a Centurion C-RAM, which looks like a gun mounted to a rotating, cylindrical stand. The gun fires 75 rounds of ammunition per second. Five seconds of firing the gun costs $30,000, slightly less than a single Iranian Shahed-136.
Centurion Counter-Rocket, Artillery and Mortar
Fires 375 rounds of ammunition in 5 seconds
Even though it is fairly cost-effective, the Centurion C-RAM is not the best option because it has such a short range.
Interceptor drones
There’s also what one might call the future of fighting drones: A.I.-powered interceptor drones. Interceptor drones like the Merops Surveyor can theoretically hunt and take down enemy projectiles from a short range.
A 3-D rendering of a Surveyor drone, which looks like a three-foot tube with wings and a tail. The Merops drone costs approximately $30,000, a little less than a single Iranian Shahed-136.
Merops system: Surveyor drone
Eric Schmidt, the former Google chief executive, founded a company to develop the Merops counter-drone system in conjunction with Ukrainian fighters, who have already been combatting Iranian drones in the war with Russia for years.
The U.S. sent thousands of Merops units to the Middle East after the conflict began, but it is unclear whether they have been deployed. The military set up training on the system in the middle of the war, as reported by Business Insider.
Other attempts to lower the cost-per-shot ratio of taking out a drone have failed.
The Pentagon invested over a billion dollars in fiscal year 2024 researching directed energy weapons, or lasers, that would cost only $3 per shot and have a range of 12 miles. Those systems have yet to be used in the field.
Despite the cost imbalance, the real fear for many in the defense community is the depleted stockpile of munitions.
“What scares me is that we will run out of these things,” said Tom Karako, the director of the Missile Defense Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. “Not that we can’t afford them, but that we’ll run out before we can replace them.”
World
Moscow-born gunman dead after Kyiv shooting rampage leaves at least 6 dead, 14 wounded: Zelenskyy
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
A Russian gunman was killed by special forces Saturday in Ukraine after opening fire at a supermarket in Kyiv, killing six people and wounding 14 others — including a 12‑year‑old boy.
The 58-year-old shooter long resided in the Donetsk region and was born in Moscow, according to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Interior Minister Ihor Klymenko.
He took at least four hostages, killed one of them, and fatally shot four others on the street, Zelenskyy said. Another woman died at a hospital from her injuries.
Graphic video captured by witnesses showed the gunman shooting at a victim within close range on the street. Other bodies were seen lying on the pavement and in courtyards.
The gunman was seen walking with a weapon on the street. (Obtained by Will Stewart)
MANHUNT UNDERWAY AFTER GUNMEN STORM CHICK-FIL-A LEAVING 1 DEAD
Ukranian special forces stormed the convenience store after 40 minutes of failed negotiations, according to Klymenko.
At least fourteen people were wounded in the attack, though officials cautioned the number may rise as people continue to seek medical assistance.
Among the injured is a 12‑year‑old boy and a supermarket security guard, according to Kyiv Mayor Vitali Klitschko.
The gunman was pictured dead in the convenience store. (Obtained by Will Stewart)
NINE DEAD, 13 WOUNDED IN SECOND TURKISH MASS SHOOTING IN TWO DAYS
Zelenskyy said the shooter also set fire to an apartment prior to the attack, though it is unclear if any injuries resulted from the arson.
“My condolences to the families and loved ones of the victims,” Zelenskyy wrote in an X post. “…We wish all the wounded a swift recovery.”
The gunman had previously been prosecuted for criminal offenses, but held a valid weapons permit, according to authorities. Investigators from the National Police and the Security Service of Ukraine are investigating.
The gunman was seen holding and shooting a weapon in the street. (Obtained by Will Stewart)
GUNMAN OPENS FIRE AT HIGH SCHOOL IN TURKEY, WOUNDING AT LEAST 16
Ukraine’s security service labeled the attack an act of terrorism.
“All available information about him and the motives behind his actions is being thoroughly investigated,” Zelenskyy said. “Every detail must be verified.”
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
One of the shooter’s neighbors, Hanna Kulyk, 75, described him as an “educated, refined man,” who lived alone and did not socialize often.
“You’d never guess he was some kind of criminal,” Kulyk told The Associated Press.
World
Iran navy says any ship trying to pass Strait of Hormuz will be targeted
Top negotiator Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf says US naval blockade of Iran’s ports is ‘a clumsy and ignorant decision’.
Published On 18 Apr 2026
Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy (IRGC) says the Strait of Hormuz is closed and that any ship that attempts to pass through the waterway will be targeted, a dramatic reversal less than 24 hours after the critical shipping lane was reopened.
In a statement carried by Iran’s Student News Agency, the IRGC navy said on Saturday the strait will be closed until the United States lifts its naval blockade on Iranian vessels and ports. It said the blockade was a violation of the ongoing ceasefire agreement in the US-Israel war on Iran.
list of 4 itemsend of listRecommended Stories
“We warn that no vessel of any kind should move from its anchorage in the Persian Gulf and the Sea of Oman, and approaching the Strait of Hormuz will be considered cooperation with the enemy, and the offending vessel will be targeted,” it said.
Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, Iran’s parliament speaker and a senior negotiator in talks between Washington and Tehran on ending the war, said in a television interview that “the Strait of Hormuz is under the control of the Islamic Republic”.
“The Americans have been declaring a blockade for several days now. This is a clumsy and ignorant decision,” he added.
The reassertion of control came just hours after Iran had briefly reopened the strait, in line with a 10-day ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon. Oil prices dropped on global markets after Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on Friday that the waterway was “completely open for all commercial vessels.”
More than a dozen commercial ships passed through the waterway before the IRGC reversed course.
Iranian gunboats reportedly fired on two commercial ships on Saturday, according to United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO). India’s Ministry of External Affairs also said that two Indian-flagged ships were involved in a “shooting incident” in the strait.
Some merchant vessels in the region received radio messages from the IRGC Navy, warning that no ships were being allowed through the strait.
US President Donald Trump said Tehran could not blackmail Washington by closing the waterway and warned that he would put an end to the ceasefire if a deal before its expiry on Wednesday is not reached. Trump added that the naval blockade would “remain in full force”.
Iranian Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei, meanwhile, said the navy was ready to inflict “new bitter defeats” on its enemies.
‘Two competing blockades’
Al Jazeera correspondent Zein Basravi said that Iran and the US are back where they were the previous day.
“Less than 24 hours ago, world leaders were praising what they thought was a breakthrough in this conflict, hoping Iran was signalling a confidence-building measure by opening the Strait of Hormuz, potentially leading to a ceasefire deal and a permanent end to the war,” he said.
“As disappointed as people may be, this isn’t entirely surprising. What we’re seeing now is a return to square one,” he added, saying there are now “two competing blockades in place”.
Al Jazeera’s Ali Hashem, reporting from Tehran, said Iran was using the strait to send a message.
“It’s clear that Iran is dealing with a situation in which they are not sure what’s on the table. So the Strait of Hormuz is once again the only space for engagement, even if it’s a negative engagement. And it’s the space where they are sending and conveying messages to the Americans, showing their leverage,” he said.
-
Delaware3 minutes agoState Police Arrest Dover Man for Assault and Aggravated Menacing in Dover – Delaware State Police – State of Delaware
-
Florida9 minutes agoSNAP benefits will be changing in Florida starting Monday
-
Georgia15 minutes agoGeorgia on nobody’s mind: The Dawgs are under the radar, and that’s a compliment
-
Hawaii21 minutes agoLarge section of Aloha Stadium demolished as project proceeds – West Hawaii Today
-
Idaho27 minutes ago
Idaho Lottery results: See winning numbers for Powerball, Pick 3 on April 18, 2026
-
Illinois33 minutes ago5 tornadoes confirmed in Illinois from Friday’s storms
-
Indiana39 minutes agoAn Indiana district turned to voters to fund more preschool seats. Here’s what happened next.
-
Iowa45 minutes agoVote: Who Should be Iowa’s High School Athlete of the Week? (4/19/2026)