Trump Admin Claims “Limited, Targeted” Iran Strike Amid Legality Questions

The Trump administration is attempting to frame its recent “Operation Midnight Hammer” against Iranian nuclear sites as a “limited, targeted engagement” to neutralize nuclear ambitions, despite widespread questions about its legality due to the absence of congressional approval. The Saturday strike, a massive B-2 bomber operation involving 125 aircraft and 75 precision weapons on Fordo, Natanz, and Isfahan, has drawn intense scrutiny. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, speaking on “Face The Nation,” emphasized that the action was not against the Iranian people or for regime change, but specifically “designed to degrade and/or destroy three nuclear sites related to their nuclear weaponization ambitions.”
Vice President Vance on “Meet The Press” reiterated that the U.S. was “at war with Iran’s nuclear program,” and not Iran itself, asserting the President’s “clear authority” to prevent WMD proliferation. He also sought to reassure Americans, weary from prolonged Middle East conflicts, that this engagement would be decisive and not a “long-drawn out thing.”
However, dissenting voices in Congress, particularly Republican Rep. Thomas Massie, argue the strike was unlawful. Massie, co-author of a bipartisan War Powers Resolution, stated on “Face The Nation” that “no imminent threat to the United States” existed, thereby invalidating the executive’s unilateral action. He criticized Congress for its inaction.
House Speaker Mike Johnson, however, publicly supported the President, asserting 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, who were reportedly not briefed until after the mission, are calling the strike illegal. Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) warned on CBS of elevated risks for American troops and stressed that such a significant military action unquestionably constitutes “hostilities” requiring congressional authorization. Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) concurred, emphasizing the lack of an “imminent threat” to justify the increased danger to U.S. forces.