President Trump’s ongoing war with Iran is blatantly unconstitutional. His unilateral use of force, without the consent of Congress, is a flagrant violation of the War Powers Clause. Congress possesses the sole authority to declare war — not the President or anyone else in his administration. Now, the administration is openly ignoring the War Powers Act — a law passed specifically to constrain presidential military overreach.
Nevertheless, the Trump administration has embarked on a bombing campaign in Iran aimed at bringing about regime change and handicapping the country’s nuclear weapons program. There was no imminent threat to American national security that could have provided a legal justification for military action without congressional authorization.
The Iran campaign, which began on February 28, followed several other unauthorized uses of military force: attacks on Venezuela beginning in January, a Christmas Day bombing in Nigeria, and various strikes on boats in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean since September. The actions in Iran and Venezuela both deposed their respective leaders — killing Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and capturing President Nicolás Maduro. Trump is reportedly considering a similar move towards regime change in Cuba, ominously mentioning that “Cuba is next” in a March 27 speech.
Beyond his stated goals of preserving national security and pursuing regime change, Trump seeks to expand the scope of presidential power. Due to Congress being controlled by feckless Trump loyalists, the President avoids risking checks on his power that could subvert his military agenda. Hence, Congress has routinely voted against reining in Trump’s military authority.
Now, Trump seems poised to ignore the War Powers Act. The 1973 law — passed by Congress over President Nixon’s veto — imposes a 60-day deadline for the President to obtain congressional authorization for military action. May 1 marked 60 days since the beginning of military operations in Iran. The administration is now attempting to skirt the deadline by arguing that the ongoing ceasefire creates an extension. Trump also suggested that the law is “totally unconstitutional,” despite it standing unchallenged for over 50 years.
His actions, paired with congressional inaction, suggest that the President can use the military however and whenever he pleases. To prevent current trends from becoming precedent, Democrats must immediately move to impeach Trump after the 2026 midterms — in which they will almost certainly win a House majority.
While a successful impeachment and removal must be bipartisan, an “unsuccessful” impeachment that fails to remove the President would still serve an important purpose. Seeing as most Republicans are unlikely to defect from Trump, a Senate vote to remove him would likely fail. Still, impeaching the President for his disregard of the War Powers Act and the Constitution would serve an important historical function: it would further tarnish his legacy and signal to future presidents that unauthorized military power is unacceptable.
Certain members of the House Judiciary Committee in 1974 pushed for a similar article of impeachment against Nixon for his unauthorized bombing of Cambodia. The article was ultimately rejected by the committee because it would not have garnered Republican support in a Senate trial. While the Nixon impeachment was aimed at actually removing the President, a Trump impeachment could not realistically achieve this goal. Without the need to form a bipartisan coalition, Democrats should feel unconstrained to impeach Trump for his unconstitutional military conduct.
If Democratic members of Congress do not impeach the President, they would be abdicating their legal and moral responsibility to check excessive presidential power — just like Republicans refusing to act right now. Last week, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries announced that impeachment will not be a “top priority” if his party wins a House majority. Not only is Jeffries ignoring the historical importance of letting Trump’s transgressions go unanswered, but he also misses the potential political benefits of impeachment.
The war in Iran is deeply unpopular. A majority (around 50–60 percent) of Americans oppose the war, and its popularity has only waned over time. Impeachment forces the Senate to hold a trial — even if Republicans maintain control of the chamber — focusing attention on one of the administration’s most unpopular policies.
It would also signal to voters that Democrats are “getting things done” with their newly-elected majority. While passing legislation (even under threat of a Trump veto) is preferable to impeachment, a Republican Senate would stonewall any partisan bills coming out of a Democratic House. If Democrats control both chambers, impeachment could take a backseat to actual policymaking. But in the likely scenario where control of Congress is split, impeachment is one of the only avenues Democrats can take that would create major headwaves. It would challenge the popular perception that the party is not fighting hard enough and hold the President accountable — albeit in a fairly minor way.
The Zeitgeist aims to publish ideas worth discussing. The views presented are solely those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views of the editorial board.
