@tessbridgeman
Co-editor-in-chief @justsecurity.org | NYU Law RCLS Sr. Fellow | Berkeley Law | Former National Security Council Deputy Legal Adviser, White House Associate Counsel & Special Assistant to the President (Obama) | Former State Department
It was great to join @weissmann.substack.com and Mary for such a thoughtful conversation - though I wish we weren’t talking about (another) illegal and reckless war. Listen on #Iran, war powers, and what it all means in context:
The authority that Trump has asserted in taking America to war against Iran is, like many of his other power grabs, an expression of the very tyranny the Framers were seeking to prevent. “Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object,” a young congressman named Abraham Lincoln wrote in 1848. This was “understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us.” This quote, incidentally, is immortalized on the House’s website, if any members of Congress are looking for it.
The design of the Constitution divided warmaking authority between Congress and the executive to prevent a president to take the country to war by themselves for any petty or self-serving reason. You know, like a king would. www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/0...
The Trump Admin has sent a war powers report on Iran to Congress, its 6th report this term.
Amidst shifting explanations for the war, it's an important document for the public.
Now analyzed and available on our #WarPowersResolutionReportingProject site:
warpowers.lawandsecurity.org/reports/2026...
@justsecurity.org's Israel-Us-Iran collection has already developed into a mini-syllabus for the war's legal aspects. All of the pieces can be found here, and surely more will come:
www.justsecurity.org/114556/colle...
Vitally important by Eliav Lieblich on why the anticipatory self-defense (which some are calling preemption) argument US officials have tried to make to justify their war in #Iran collapses completely.
Clear, concise, thoughtful, must read:
www.justsecurity.org/133093/preem...
Vitally important by Eliav Lieblich on why the anticipatory self-defense (which some are calling preemption) argument US officials have tried to make to justify their war in #Iran collapses completely.
Clear, concise, thoughtful, must read:
www.justsecurity.org/133093/preem...
Good line of analysis from @sigalsamuel.bsky.social.
"But what if authoritarian rule that uses tech to surveil people in alarming ways is already becoming the norm in the US? If America is shape-shifting into the bogeyman it critiques, what happens to the case for racing ahead on AI?"
2/ "Some lawmakers and U.S. officials say Iran was nowhere near capable of building a nuclear weapon, even if Tehran seeks one. They also say there is NO EVIDENCE to support Trump’s claim that Iran could rapidly develop a missile capable of striking the U.S."
www.wsj.com/world/middle...
"U.S. officials and lawmakers with access to classified information ... say the administration’s assertions are incomplete, unsubstantiated, or flat-out wrong."
- Wall Street Journal
2/
Subset isolates when POTUS made decision to abandon negotiations, resort to war.
Subset gets at pre-strike assessments - what stakes for the American people were considered, and for the region.
Subset gets at intelligence assessments and levels of confidence on what happens next.
Much more.
With senior US officials briefing Congress on Tuesday about Iran war plans.
I teamed up with @tessbridgeman.bsky.social @k8brannen.bsky.social
Top Questions the Trump Administration Needs to Answer on War with Iran
Also plenty of questions for journalists (and the public) here.
🧵1/
This is an important point. A capability ≠ an imminent threat of armed attack.
Here's how @mikeschmitt.bsky.social, @rgoodlaw.bsky.social and I explained it recently:
www.justsecurity.org/132180/us-ir...
“By Hegseth’s standard, any country having any advanced defensive weaponry of any kind can be labeled an imminent threat.”
trib.al/7Q6ZGAX
Folks on the Hill, these are Qs that should have been answered prior to the #Iran war if Trump had come to Congress as he must under the law.
Qs cover:
-stragegy/goals/off-ramps
-domestic & int'l law
-targeting & LOAC
-costs & readiness
-long-term consequences
www.justsecurity.org/132970/quest...
Trump argues for forever wars
Trump is now defending “forever” wars.
The linchpin of his populist-style critique of the foreign policy establishment was that it got us into “forever” wars.
Trump isn’t just defending his war with Iran. Now he is claiming that he can wage “forever” wars “very successfully.”
If this were SNL it would be funny, a parody of a declining dictator...
But all too seriously, this is the President's confused musing about the abuse of his power to direct the US military into aimless war.
With staggering real consequences for lives, security, the economy, & the rule of law.
Folks on the Hill, these are Qs that should have been answered prior to the #Iran war if Trump had come to Congress as he must under the law.
Qs cover:
-stragegy/goals/off-ramps
-domestic & int'l law
-targeting & LOAC
-costs & readiness
-long-term consequences
www.justsecurity.org/132970/quest...
👋 Former State Department War Powers lawyer here.
This statement by Rubio is false.
As @tessbridgeman.bsky.social and I wrote in January:
www.justsecurity.org/128517/war-p...
CNN's Natasha Bertrand writes: "Rubio just confirmed this, saying DoD had indications that Iran would strike US forces…if Israel first attacked Iran." Followed by her writing: '“The imminent threat was that we knew that if Iran was attacked, and we believed they would be attacked, that they would immediately come after us, and we were not going to sit, sit there and absorb a blow before we responded,” Rubio told press on Capitol Hill Monday.'
This is one of administration's best arguments - and it's trash.
Can't justify then joining the very war of aggression (under international law) that creates the blowback.
As best justifies targeting ballistic missiles in defense. Not leadership decapitation, etc.
Can't justify skipping Congress!
They made a peaceful and sensible deal. Trump ripped it up because Barack Obama’s name was on it.
Correction: if Congress wants to do something it can end the #Iran war today and take Americans out of harm’s way.
This is worse than abdication of responsibility - it’s support for letting more US service members and countless others in the region perish instead of doing your constitutional duty.
RHODES: “.. This was a decision made by one man with no legal basis, little public support and no coherent explanation of an endgame.”
@nytopinion.nytimes.com
www.nytimes.com/2026/03/02/o...
As casualties spiral, the wisdom of 2(4) grows: "In the face of Trump’s wide-ranging threats..the costs of standing up for the UN Charter at this moment are high. The trouble is, the long-term cost of giving up on Art 2(4) of the UN Charter may be even higher." www.justsecurity.org/132773/us-ir...
Top Experts’ Backgrounder: Military Action Against Iran and US Domestic Law
www.justsecurity.org/64645/war-po...
Our primary insight into how the Trump Admin lawyers* war powers comes from the OLC memo they published on the Venezuela strikes and capture of Maduro.
My analysis here:
Congress should not let Hegseth abuse the statutory authority he’s been delegated, either with respect to the underlying supply chain risk designation of Anthropic, or by turning it into “attempted corporate murder,” writes @tessbridgeman.bsky.social
www.justsecurity.org/132851/anthr...
2/ Congress and journalists need to ask:
- Are former officials being made the object of attack in #Iran, or were these collateral deaths?
- If being targeted, is it b/c they are important political figures (an unlawful reason), or based on what info were they determined to be lawful targets?
Pres Trump said the US had identified possible candidates to take over Iran, but they were killed in the initial attack.
Reminder: Former officials, unless active in the chain of command or otherwise directly participating in hostilities, are not lawful targets under the laws of armed conflict (binding on all parties regardless of who starts a war).
This raises serious Qs about who is being targeted in #Iran & why👇
To: House and Senate Foreign Relations, Armed Services, and Judiciary Committees:
Time to stand up for Art. I of our Constitution and the representatives of the people deciding when to go to war, not the whims of one man in the White House (or Mar-a-Lago).
www.justsecurity.org/64645/war-po...