Who authorized this?

Congress didn't vote to go to war with Iran. That failure belongs to all of us.

I spent eighteen years on Capitol Hill. I served as chief of staff to a congressman most would call a “hawk.” He took hard votes — even unpopular ones — and had strong opinions in support of America’s role in the world through diplomacy and, yes, through the use of force. I say that because what happened last Friday should alarm every American who believes in constitutional government, regardless of where they fall on the question of Iran.

One thing I can count on from Bright America readers, the next paragraph won’t come as a shock: On February 28, the United States and Israel launched a joint military campaign against Iran. The operation killed Supreme Leader Khamenei, struck military and nuclear infrastructure across the country, and triggered retaliatory attacks on American bases throughout the Persian Gulf. As of this writing, Iranian missiles and drones have hit targets in Iraq, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates. The President has said this campaign could last four to five weeks. He has signaled it could go longer.

Congress did not authorize any of it.

The Gang of Eight received a phone call from Secretary Rubio shortly before the bombs fell. Rank-and-file members of both parties have said publicly that they were given little information about the operation’s objectives, legal rationale, or endgame. This is not a partisan complaint. Republican Lisa Murkowski has questioned whether last summer’s nuclear strikes even accomplished their stated goals. Members of the President’s own party are raising constitutional objections.

These are not fringe voices.

Allow me be direct about something. I believe the President must have the authority to defend the homeland. When American lives face an imminent threat, a commander-in-chief cannot convene a committee. The Founders understood this. The executive power to repel sudden attacks exists for a reason, and I will always defend it.

But that is not what happened here. This was not a defensive strike against an imminent attack. This was a planned, weeks-long military campaign, coordinated with a foreign partner, targeting a sovereign nation’s leadership and infrastructure. That is the definition of war.

And the Constitution is unambiguous about who authorizes war. Article I, Section 8 assigns that power to Congress. Not as a suggestion. Not as a courtesy. As a structural requirement of self-government.

The question is: Why has Congress been unable or unwilling to assert that authority? The honest answer is that this did not start last Friday. Congress has been ceding war powers to the executive branch for decades, across administrations of both parties. The 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, passed three days after September 11, has been stretched to justify operations in countries and against adversaries that did not exist when it was written.

Presidents of both parties have exploited that ambiguity. And Congress has let them.

This administration has now launched three major unauthorized military operations: the capture of Venezuela’s president, strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities last summer, and the current campaign. Each time, lawmakers complained. Each time, they failed to act. The War Powers Act provides a mechanism to force votes on unauthorized hostilities.

It has been invoked repeatedly, yet has not once succeeded in stopping this administration from doing what it intended to do. That pattern should concern every voter in this country, and not only because of Iran.

When Congress stops functioning as a co-equal branch of government, the people it represents lose their voice in the most consequential decisions a nation can make.

Sending Americans into combat is the gravest action a government can take. The Founders required congressional authorization precisely because they believed that decision should reflect the will of the people, expressed through their elected representatives. When that process breaks down, when a president can wage war without a vote, the connection between citizens and their government frays at its most critical point.

This is not abstract. If you are a parent with a child in the military, your representative in Congress should have a say in whether that child goes to war. If you are a taxpayer, you are funding operations that no one you elected has voted to approve. If you are a veteran, you served under an oath to the Constitution that includes Article I. Every one of those people deserves a Congress that takes its responsibilities as seriously as they take theirs.

Beyond the question of how our long-term security fundamentally changes after this attack, the clear and present danger is the fate of a country whose citizens have lost all faith that their representatives possess any real power. A weak Congress does not just fail to check the executive. It hollows out the public’s faith in self-government itself. People stop calling their representatives because they believe it will not matter. They stop voting because the big decisions happen without their input. That erosion of civic trust is more corrosive to national strength than any foreign adversary. We cannot win a war by committee. No serious person argues otherwise.

But a democracy that wages war without the consent of its people is weaker for it, not stronger. Congressional authorization is the mechanism through which the public signals that it stands behind the sacrifices being asked of its soldiers, its treasury, and its standing in the world. Without that signal, military action rests on the authority of one person. History offers no shortage of examples for how that ends.

The votes next week will matter. Not because they will likely succeed in halting operations, but because they will force every member of Congress to answer a straightforward question: Do you believe the Constitution means what it says?

That question belongs to all of us. Call your representative. Ask them where they stand. Their answer will tell you whether you still have one.

Guide to Calling Your Elected Officials

Find candidates at every level who understand that holding office means asserting the authority the Constitution grants, not surrendering it. The strongest check on executive overreach is not a law or a procedural vote. It is an engaged citizenry that refuses to accept representatives who will not represent them.