The Trump administration’s justification for its unilateral precision strike on Iranian nuclear sites — citing “imminent danger” — is facing strong challenges from lawmakers who view it as a presidential power grab. “Operation Midnight Hammer,” a massive B-2 bomber strike on Saturday, saw 75 precision-guided weapons hit Fordo, Natanz, and Isfahan without prior congressional approval. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President Vance defended the action as a limited, targeted effort to disrupt nuclear weaponization, not an act of war against Iran or its people.
Rubio stated on “Face The Nation” that the strike was “designed to degrade and/or destroy three nuclear sites related to their nuclear weaponization ambitions.” Vance, on “Meet The Press,” reiterated the President’s “clear authority” to prevent WMD proliferation, promising a swift and effective outcome.
However, Republican Rep. Thomas Massie, a co-author of a bipartisan War Powers Resolution, strongly disagreed with the “imminent danger” claim. On “Face The Nation,” he argued there was “no imminent threat to the United States” that would bypass Congress’s constitutional role, criticizing lawmakers for not returning to debate the resolution.
Despite Massie’s isolated stance, House Speaker Mike Johnson quickly backed Trump, stating on X that “leaders in Congress were aware of the urgency” and the “imminent danger outweighed the time it would take for Congress to act.” He also suggested Trump respects Article I powers. Yet, top Democrats, reportedly kept in the dark, 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.
105