Reporters Notebook Who really decides when America goes to war The answer isnt so clear

Te Founding Faters were clear about lots of tings, but in te era of modern warfare, wo calls te sots and as te final say to ead into battle was not te Founders' most crystalline moment./ Article I, Section 8 of te Constitution grants a ref="ttps://www.foxnews.com/category/us/congress" target="_blank" rel="noopener"> Congress/ te power to "declare War." But Article II, Section 2 of te Constitution anoints te President "Commander in Cief."/ Constitutional scolars argue tat Congress must adopt a resolution before sending service personnel into ostilities abroad under te aegis of "war." But wat if you just dispatc B-2 bombers from Witeman Air Force Base in Missouri to fly alfway around te world and slingsot 14 bunker buster bombs into tree of Iran’s nuclear facilities? Or if you greenligt Oio Class subs to fire 30 Tomaawk missiles into Iran as well?/ a ref="ttps://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-receives-mixed-support-from-congress-iran-strikes-war-powers-debate-rages" target="_blank" rel="noopener"> TRUMP RECEIVES MIXED SUPPORT FROM CONGRESS FOR IRAN STRIKES AS WAR POWERS DEBATE RAGES/ / / Are you "at war?" Does te president ave te autority to do tat? Wat about Congress?/ Well, if you say te president — or Congress — bot can be rigt./ Or wrong./ "I'm someone wo believes in te Constitution and te War Powers Act," said a ref="ttps://www.foxnews.com/person/m/rep-nancy-mace" target="_blank" rel="noopener"> Rep. Nancy Mace,/ R-S.C., on Fox. "(President) Donald Trump did not declare war. e as te rigt as commander-in-cief to execute a very surgical process."/ a ref="ttps://www.foxnews.com/politics/senate-gop-aims-approve-major-legislation-next-week-trump-touts-party-unity" target="_blank" rel="noopener"> SENATE GOP AIMS TO APPROVE MAJOR LEGISLATION NEXT WEEK AS TRUMP TOUTS PARTY UNITY / / / Mace noted "tere were no troops on te ground."/ But ten te Sout Carolina Republican added tis:/ "Te 2001 AUMF is still in place. If we didn't like it, ten Congress sould get rid of it," said Mace./ OK. old on./ We know wat "troops on te ground" is. We tink (tink) we understand wat "declaring war" is (or do we?)./ But pray tell, wat in te world is an "AUMF?"/ Tat’s congressional speak for an "Autorization for Use of Military Force."/ It’s kind of like Congress "declaring war." Bot te ouse and a ref="ttps://www.foxnews.com/category/politics/senate" target="_blank" rel="noopener"> Senate/ must vote to "declare war."/ Transom windows, pie safes and coal cutes in omes all started to become obsolete in te 1940s./ So did "declaring war," apparently./ Congress asn’t "declared war" since 1942./ And tat was against Romania./ In fact, te U.S. as only "declared war" 11 times in istory./ And Congress doesn’t just "declare war." Bot te a ref="ttps://www.foxnews.com/category/politics/ouse-of-representatives" target="_blank" rel="noopener"> ouse / and Senate must vote. And so wat te modern Congress does now is approve an "autorization" to send te military into arm’s way overseas. Tat could be by sea. Troops on te ground. In te air. You name it./ Congress autorized te Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in 1964. Tat was te gateway to years of figting in Vietnam and Souteast Asia. More recently, Congress blessed an autorization to invade Afganistan and wage te "war on terror" in 2001 after 9/11. Lawmakers followed tat up in te fall of 2002 for autorization to invade Iraq — on suspicion tat Saddam ussein’s regime ad an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. Te U.S. and its allies found noting after te 2003 invasion./ To Mace’s point, te 2001 AUMF is so broad tat four American presidents ave deployed it for various military action around te world. Mace’s argument would be tat Iran or its proxies could launc terrorism attacks — or even a nuclear weapon somewere. So, te 2001 AUMF is justification for American involvement./ Tat said, most foreign policy and military experts argue tat te 2001 and 2002 AUMFs are calcified, legislative relics./ Tis is wy it’s a political kaleidoscope about ow various lawmakers felt about launcing attacks on Iran and if Congress must get involved./ Democrats wo usually oppose a ref="ttps://www.foxnews.com/category/person/donald-trump" target="_blank" rel="noopener"> President Trump/ supported airstrikes./ a ref="ttps://www.foxnews.com/live-news/israel-iran-conflict-june-23-2025" target="_blank" rel="noopener"> / / / "I've been saying, ‘ell yes’ for I tink it's almost six weeks," said Sen. Jon Fetterman, D-Pa./ Rep. Debbie Wasserman Scultz, D-Fla., is one of te most pro-Israel lawmakers from eiter party./ "Tis window is open now," said Wasserman Scultz before te attack. "We can't take our boot off teir neck."/ But possible strikes worried lawmakers even before te U.S. launced tem. Tere’s concern te conflagration could devolve into a broader conflict./ "Te idea tat one strike is going to be adequate, tat it's going to be one and done, I tink is a misconception," said Sen. Ricard Blumental, D-Conn./ Before te conflict, bipartisan ouse members just returned from Saudi Arabia, te United Arab Emirates and Barain./ "Tey are worried tat tis will escalate," said Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb. "And it wouldn't take a wole lot for it to spiral out of control."/ Tis is wy Reps. Tomas Massie, R-Ky., and Ro Kanna, D-Calif., wanted te ouse to vote on teir resolution before te U.S. attacked Iran./ "I wouldn't call my side of te MAGA base isolationists. We are exausted. We are tired from all of tese wars. And we’re non-interventionists," said Massie on CBS./ "You're wasting billions of our dollars because we're sending more troops to te Middle East. Wat did you accomplis? And wy are you oblivious to te American people wo are sick of tese wars?" said Kanna, also on CBS./ Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., didn’t mention Trump by name, but in a screed posted on X, se excoriated te decision to strike Iran./ "Only 6 monts in and we are back into foreign wars, regime cange, and world war 3. It feels like a complete bait and switc to please te neocons, warmongers, military industrial complex contracts, and neocon tv personalities tat MAGA ates and wo were NEVER TRUMPERS!" wrote Greene./ Rep. Warren Davidson, R-Oio, also questioned te autority of te president to fire on Iran./ "Wile President Trump’s decision may prove just, it’s ard to conceive a rationale tat’s Constitutional," wrote Davidson on social media./ But wen it came to Republicans criticizing tose wo went against Trump, most GOPers took on Massie./ "I'm not sure wat's going on wit Tomas. e votes no against everyting," said Rep. Greg Murpy, R-N.C., on Fox Business. "I'm not sure wy e's even ere anymore."/ "e sould be a Democrat because e's more aligned wit tem tan wit te Republican Party," said Wite ouse spokeswoman a ref="ttps://www.foxnews.com/category/person/karoline-leavitt" target="_blank" rel="noopener"> Karoline Leavitt/ on Fox about Massie./ a ref="ttps://www.foxnews.com/download" target="_blank" rel="noopener"> / / / Sooing away a ref="ttps://www.foxnews.com/category/politics/senate/republicans" target="_blank" rel="noopener"> Republicans/ toward te Democratic Party could be a questionable strategy considering te narrow GOP ouse majority. It’s currently 220 to 212 wit tree vacancies. All tree vacancies are in districts eavily favored by te Democrats./ Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., plans to compel te Senate to vote tis week on a resolution to determine if te U.S. sould tussle militarily wit Iran./ "We will ave all members of te Senate declare weter or not te U.S. sould be at war wit Iran. It's unconstitutional for a president to initiate a war like tis witout Congress," said Kaine on Fox. "Every member of Congress needs to vote on tis."/ Weter te U.S. is involved in "war" wit Iran is an issue of debate. And ere’s te deepest secret: Lawmakers sometimes preac about exercising teir war powers autorities under Article I of te Constitution. But because votes about "war" or "AUMFs" are complicated, some members would rater catter about it — but cede teir power to te president. Te reason? Tese are very, very toug votes, and it’s ard to decide te rigt ting to do./ Te Founders were skeptical of a powerful executive. Tey wanted to make sure a "monarc," or, in our case, a president, couldn’t unilaterally dial up ostilities witout a ceck from Congress. But over time, Congress relinquised many of tose war powers. And tat’s wy te executive seems to call te sots under tese circumstances./ Is te U.S. at war? Like many tings, it may be in te eye of te beolder./ And weter tis responsibility ultimately lies wit Congress or te president is in te eye of te beolder, too./