Congress has not voted to authorize a single military operation launched by Donald Trump - not the Houthi bombing campaign, not the Venezuela invasion, not the strikes on Nigerian militants, and not the war on Iran now entering its third day. Richard Fontaine, CEO of the Center for a New American Security, identifies this pattern in a Foreign Affairs analysis as one of the most consequential shifts in American war-making.
As reported by "Hvylya", Fontaine's article in Foreign Affairs draws a stark contrast with previous administrations. George W. Bush sought and received congressional authorization for both Afghanistan and Iraq. He spent "considerable political capital to persuade Americans that the decisions to go to war were wise." The Powell Doctrine treated legislative support as essential - if a war was worth fighting, Congress had to say so.
Trump has discarded this requirement entirely. "Not a single conflict during Trump's presidencies has been preceded by a campaign to win public support, and Congress has not voted to authorize any of them," Fontaine writes. Instead, "each conflict began suddenly and followed an unpredictable course." The administration prioritized surprise over democratic process.
The Venezuela operation was disguised as an anti-drug mission. The Caribbean military buildup was framed as stopping drug boats, "not to prepare for a direct regime change operation." The Iran war began while negotiations were ongoing, catching Congress as off guard as the rest of the world. Even in the nearly two-hour State of the Union address last week, Trump addressed Iran in only a few sentences.
Fontaine notes that this approach deliberately sidelines the Vietnam-era lesson that drove the Powell Doctrine: wars fought without popular support end badly. Powell and his predecessor, Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, insisted that democratic legitimacy was not a formality but a strategic necessity. Without public backing, wars become politically unsustainable.
The Iran case pushes this tension to its limit. The operation is the most ambitious regime change attempt since Iraq - targeting a larger, more populous country with an entrenched security apparatus. Yet it launched with less public deliberation than any major U.S. military action in modern history. Whether Congress reasserts its constitutional war-making authority or accepts its marginalization may define American governance as much as the outcome in Iran itself.
Also read: Not Just Regime Change: What Israel Really Wants in Iran, According to Levy