The Erosion of Checks and Balances: Presidential War Powers in the Age of “Midnight Hammer”
By Maria Petrova, Content Strategist & SEO Expert
(Published July 26, 2025)
The recent U.S. military strike against Iran, dubbed “Operation Midnight Hammer” and authorized solely by President Trump, has reignited a debate as old as the Constitution itself: who holds the power to wage war? This unilateral action, undertaken without congressional approval, isn’t an isolated incident, but a stark illustration of a decades-long trend towards expanding executive authority in matters of national security. While the immediate aftermath saw a flurry of legal analysis (see insightful perspectives from the Washington Post and New York Times),the concerning lack of considerable congressional or public outcry underscores a risky precedent. It echoes the chilling observation attributed to Napoleon, articulated by Justice Robert Jackson in the landmark Steel Seizure case ( Justia), that “The tools belong to the man who can use them.”
The President’s legal team undoubtedly justified the strike based on a well-worn path of Department of Justice opinions (Justice.gov – 2011 Libya Opinion and justice.gov – Further Endorsement) asserting broad, “unilateral” presidential war powers. This argument rests on a three-pronged foundation: the Commander in Chief clause of Article II, ancient precedent of presidential action, and a narrow interpretation of Congress’s constitutional role. Essentially, the executive branch contends that only large-scale, prolonged military engagements trigger congress’s exclusive power to declare war, as outlined in Article I.Adding a layer of complexity is the War Powers Resolution of 1973 (Yale Law School – War Powers Resolution), a law passed over President Nixon‘s veto, intended to limit precisely this kind of executive overreach.
While consensus on the legitimacy of this expansive view of presidential power remains elusive,”Operation Midnight Hammer” provides a critical opportunity to examine the interplay between the Constitution,historical practice,and the War Powers Resolution.
The Constitutional Balancing Act: Separateness and Interdependence
The common narrative of a rigidly “separated” Constitution is misleading. The framers didn’t aim to create isolated silos of power, but rather to distribute authority over shared responsibilities. As Justice Jackson eloquently stated in Steel Seizure, the Constitution “diffuses power the better to secure liberty, it also contemplates that practice will integrate the dispersed powers into a workable government…enjoins upon its branches separateness but interdependence, autonomy but reciprocity.”
This interdependence is particularly evident in the realm of war powers. Article I grants Congress significant authority – the power to declare war, raise and support armies, fund military operations, and establish rules for the armed forces. Though, Congress is explicitly not granted the power to direct the conduct of war. That duty falls to the President, as
