Trump Started a War. Congress Just Watched. (w/ Tess Bridgeman) | Illegal News

Tess Bridgeman unequivocally states that the US military actions against Iran constitute an illegal war. Under international law, it's a 'war of aggression' violating Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which prohibits the use of force against another state unless authorized by the Security Council or in legitimate self-defense against an armed attack or imminent threat. Domestically, it violates the US Constitution's Article I, which grants Congress the sole power to declare war. The administration's justifications, such as an 'imminent threat' from Iran's nuclear or ballistic missile capabilities, are dismissed as pretexts, as Iran posed no actual armed attack threat and was not close to obtaining nuclear weapons.

Bridgeman states, 'It's illegal flatly under both domestic and international law. So under international law, it is a flagrant violation of the UN charter. It's a war of aggression. Let's be clear. Let's put a name on it. It's what Putin did in Ukraine and it's flatly illegal.' She further explains that 'there has been no threat of armed attack against the United States' from Iran, and their capabilities did not constitute an 'imminent threat.'

Over decades, the executive branch has steadily expanded its interpretation of presidential war powers, moving beyond the original constitutional intent of repelling 'sudden attack' or rescuing US nationals. The Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) developed a two-part test: the president can act without Congress if articulating a 'sufficiently important national interest' (no longer just self-defense) and if the action 'does not rise to the level of what they call war in the constitutional sense.' This test is subjective and has been 'stretched and stretched' by the OLC, allowing presidents to cherry-pick factors to justify unilateral military action, often avoiding formal memos when the answer is 'no' to legality.

Bridgeman details, 'what we've ended up with over the years is the executive branch stretching and stretching and stretching when it believes it can go to war without going to Congress first.' She adds that OLC 'played really fast and loose with this test in order to keep letting the president get his way.' She notes that OLC 'doesn't write memos generally when the answer is no.'

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 was enacted to reassert congressional authority over war-making, requiring presidential consultation, 48-hour reporting, and a 60-day 'kill switch' for unauthorized deployments. However, a Supreme Court decision (unrelated to war powers) invalidated the 'legislative veto' mechanism, meaning congressional resolutions to terminate presidential military action now require the president's signature or a supermajority override. This effectively reverses the founders' intent, making it harder for Congress to stop an illegal war than to authorize one.

Bridgeman explains, 'a totally separate Supreme Court decision that had nothing to do with war powers invalidated what's called the legislative veto.' She concludes, 'instead of authorizing war in the first place or having simple majorities to turn off a war the president started, you need a super majority to stop an illegal war that the president has started in violation of the constitution. And that's backwards land.'

A major contributing factor to the executive's unchecked war powers is Congress's consistent failure to exercise its constitutional duties. This 'supine Congress' prioritizes party lines over Article I prerogatives, even when faced with an unpopular and illegal war. Despite having tools like the power of the purse (funding cut-offs), Congress lacks the 'muscle memory' for robust oversight, preferring to let the president bear the political consequences of unpopular military actions rather than taking 'hard votes' themselves.

Bridgeman states, 'A thousand% and that's the biggest problem we face on this front.' She adds, 'Congress that is unwilling to check him because they are more concerned about voting on party lines than they are about Article 1's prerogatives.' She also notes, 'they don't have the muscle memory. They don't they don't know that they actually can do their jobs because they're so used to not doing it.'