Trump started an illegal war on Iran just as the DOJ was under intense pressure to release three FBI interviews with a 13-year-old-girl who accused Trump of sexual abuse. The attack on Iran should not reduce public pressure for the release of documents that may shed light on that accusation and the DOJ’s complicity in covering up Trump’s involvement in the Epstein sex trafficking enterprise.
Although difficult to do, we should make every effort to prevent the illegal war on Iran from distracting attention from the Epstein scandal, Trump’s use of ICE to brutalize the American people, his damage to the economy from illegal tariffs, and the degradation of the American healthcare system, scientific community, and manufacturing base.
The illegal war on Iran is a multifaceted topic that cannot be done justice in a single newsletter. But there are some things we know with certainty and others about which we can be reasonably certain. I will highlight those stories.
But most importantly, I will address the new round of fears by Americans that the war on Iran will be used as a pretext for the declaration of a national emergency to interfere with the 2026 midterms. That is undoubtedly Trump’s half-baked plan; he may attempt to do so; but he will fail if he tries—because we and the courts will stop him.
Sadly, some pro-democracy outlets devoted their Sunday editions to loudly proclaiming that the war would be used as a pretext for election interference—skipping over the part where we fight back and win.
I urge you not to be panicked, dissuaded, or demotivated by outlets that want you to believe we are helpless victims or that Trump has superpowers to do whatever he wants. Yes, democracy faces a serious threat that we must take seriously. The appropriate response is resistance, not irrational fear, or unnecessary amplification of Trump’s lawless claims.
The good news is that we know the drill; we know what to do; we just need more people to join us in the fight. That is happening as we speak. One thing you can do now is to convince two friends or family members who have never protested to join the No Kings Protest on March 28, 2026. We must help to make it the largest political protest in the history of America by a large margin.
This will stop when enough of us say no.
The war on Iran is illegal.
Readers who posted Comments on Sunday repeatedly asked, “How can Trump do this? Is it legal? How can he be stopped?”
First, the war against Iran is illegal under US and international law. Trump and the administration have made no serious attempt provide a lawful basis for starting the war.
For an excellent discussion of the legal basis for commencing war—and the lack of a justification here—see Just Security (June 18, 2025), Top Experts’ Backgrounder: Military Action Against Iran and US Domestic Law. (Although this article was originally published in 2019, it was updated in 2025, and republished on February 28, 2026. Its legal analysis remains unchanged with the passage of time.)
As we explained in 2019 and remains true today [February 28, 2026), there is no existing [authorized use of military force] that would authorize the President to use force against Iran.
Second, under the Executive branch’s own interpretation of Article II of the Constitution, which has become much broader in recent decades and is not necessarily shared by Congress or the courts, the President may use force to protect an important national interest, but only so long as the force used does not amount to war “in the constitutional sense” (which the Constitution delegates Congress alone the power to authorize, along with a host of other war-related powers found in Article I).
There is no question that killing most of Iran’s senior civilian and military leadership for the stated purpose of regime change is “war in the constitutional sense.” See Institute for the Study of War, Iran Update Morning Special Report: March 1, 2026.
Trump was required to obtain a declaration of war from Congress. He did not. That failure violates Article I of the Constitution.
Second, Trump violated his Article II duty to “take care” in executing the laws by failing to abide by the United Nations’ charter, a treaty ratified by the Senate in 1945. There is no justification for attacking Iran or killing its civilian leadership under the UN Charter. The exceptions—self-defense and UN authorization—do not apply. As such, Trump has violated international law by failing to abide by the UN Charter. See The Conversation, Neither preemptive nor legal, US-Israeli strikes on Iran have blown up international law.
Several readers asked if senior military leaders could be held accountable for following orders to commence an illegal war. That is a very good question that should weigh heavily on those leaders. We don’t know what legal justification they were given before they commenced military operations. They were undoubtedly given a legal memo from the Pentagon’s lawyers (my inference based on what happened in the attack on Venezuela).
If that memo exists, we don’t know what it says, but comments from administration officials suggest “self-defense” against a future attack from Iran as a rationale. But self-defense is a justification only if an attack is imminent. See Time Magazine, Did Trump Have the Legal Authority to Strike Iran? An Expert Weighs In.
Per Time, quoting David Janovsky of the Project On Government Oversight,
It’s true that presidents have some inherent authority to deploy the military as Commander in Chief, but that’s really limited to true emergency circumstances where there is an attack underway that needs to be repelled, or maybe an extremely clear imminent attack. But there’s no suggestion that that’s the case today—that would make the strikes [on Iran] illegal.
Why can’t we stop Trump from conducting an illegal war?
Courts are reluctant to intervene in questions over the president’s exercise of authority as Commander in Chief. Why? Because the Constitution deliberately separates the power to declare war (belonging to Congress) from the power to conduct war (belonging to the president).
It is generally accepted that the president has the authority to protect the US in emergency situations. If there is a disagreement about what constitutes an emergency, that is for Congress and the president to resolve between themselves.
Where there is a conflict over the exercise of war powers, the courts will likely find that the dispute is a political question to be worked out between the two branches of government invested with the power to declare and conduct war. See Congressional Research Service, The Declare War Clause, Part 3.
Per the Congressional Research Service,
Lower federal courts have frequently declined to decide challenges to presidential authority to deploy U.S. forces into conflicts overseas, holding that the plaintiffs could not meet the threshold constitutional standards required for federal court jurisdiction. Courts have based these decisions on several justiciability doctrines that limit federal court review, including standing, mootness, ripeness, and the political question doctrine.
Congress can and should act to restrain Trump’s illegal war on Iran. But Republicans have effectively allowed Trump to engineer a hostile takeover of Congress, with Speaker Mike Johnson and Majority Leader John Thune serving as roadblocks to Congressional oversight of Trump.
Thus, the president’s power to wage wars has much wider latitude from courts than his exercise of domestic powers.
That distinction—between the power to wage war and limited authority over domestic matters—is critical in responding to concerns from readers who ask, “If Trump can conduct an illegal war without any restraint, why can’t he just declare a national emergency to cancel the 2026 midterms?” Good question! Read on!
Why I believe Trump will not be able to declare a national emergency to stop the 2026 elections.
Immediately after the attack on Iran, some pro-democracy outlets and organizations began saying that the war was an effort by Trump to “lay the groundwork to declare his election ’emergency’ to change rules and argue to courts they can’t question his national security judgment in wartime. And if the Court does, he’s preparing to say that’s beyond their constitutional powers.”¹
It is, of course, possible that Trump may invoke his war powers or national security powers to attempt to impede the 2026 elections. Indeed, he probably will. I devoted most of a newsletter last week explaining his plans to do so—and why those plans are, in the words of Democracy Docket, “laughable.” See Robert Hubbell, Today’s Edition, Trump CANNOT regulate elections by executive order.
The administration’s argument goes something like this: In wartime, the president has “plenary” power. His judgments about national security are “unreviewable by courts.” Therefore, he can do whatever he wants.
First, let’s recognize that analogizing the judicial deference given to the president in the exercise of war powers to his (non-existent) power over elections is a category error. Those powers are not alike and courts treat them differently.
The US held elections during the Civil War. The US held elections during WWI and WWII. The US held elections during the War of 1812. The US has never suspended, altered, or restricted access to the ballot because of war. The notion that an illegal war on Iran (if it is still active) would justify suspending or modifying the 2026 midterms would be rejected out of hand.
[Indeed, the opposite is true; Congress and the states have expanded access to the ballot during wartime. During the Civil War, some states passed laws allowing mail ballots for soldiers serving outside of their home state during the 1864 presidential election. Likewise, Congress expanded absentee voting in WWII to allow 11 million soldiers overseas to vote in the 1944 election. See The Soldier Voting Act and Absentee Ballots in World War II | The National WWII Museum | New Orleans.]
Second, the Supreme Court just rejected the most likely source of Trump’s emergency powers—the IEEPA—as a basis for imposing tariffs because of alleged “national emergencies.” It would do so with the specious claim that the IEEPA justifies interference with the 2026 midterms. See Rich Hasen, The Supreme Court’s Tariffs Opinion Suggest Strong Limits on President Trump’s Attempts to Exert Power over the Administration of Congressional Elections.
Third, the Supreme Court also just rejected the argument that Trump’s declarations of emergency are unreviewable, writing, “That view, if credited, would “represent[ ] a ‘transformative expansion’ ” of the President’s authority . . . .” See Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, 607 U.S. ___ (2026), slip op. at 3.
The legal arguments against Trump’s anticipated claim of a national emergency are much more extensive and nuanced than I have outlined, but I hope the above gives you a sense that the courts will reject Trump’s claim that a national emergency, even during wartime, authorizes him to modify or suspend the midterm. Skillful lawyers like Marc Elias, Norm Eisen, and others are already sharpening their pens.
Here’s my point: The fact that Trump has more latitude as Commander in Chief to conduct military operations does not change the calculus regarding his ability regulate elections. Unlike war powers, where the president shares joint authority with Congress, the Constitution assigns no role to the president in the conduct of elections.
Why did Trump start a war with Iran?
Many readers wondered why Trump started a war with Iran. I doubt that he knows why he did. He may have had multiple reasons, all of which involved benefit to himself: Distraction from the Epstein scandal and sagging favorability ratings, monetary advantage to himself and his family, pressure from Saudi Arabia, and impulse control.
Timothy Snyder offers a very thoughtful piece on Substack, Why Attack Iran? - by Timothy Snyder - Thinking about....
Snyder says there are two ways to think about Trump’s reasons for starting a war with Iran:
These facts suggest two interpretive frameworks: a foreign war as a mechanism to destroy democracy at home; and a foreign war as an element of personal corruption by the president of the United States.
On the first point—foreign war as a way to destroy democracy at home—Snyder writes,
The relationship between foreign war and domestic authoritarianism can take two basic forms: 1) we must all rally because there is a war and everyone who oppose the war is a traitor; 2) we must hold elections under specific conditions favorable to the party in power.
This is utterly predictable and should be easy to halt and indeed to reverse.
On the second point, Snyder writes,
The basic structural feature of regional politics is a rivalry between Iran on the one side and Gulf Arab states plus Israel on the other. Given that this structural feature is a far more durable element of politics than the wavering and contradictory statements of the Trump administration, it is a good place to start. And where does it lead?
It leads to personal politics or rather personal gain. Given the stupefyingly overt corruption of the Trump administration, one must ask whether the United States armed forces are now being used on a per-hire basis.
Snyder is thus positing that Trump is using the resources of the US to advance his family’s personal financial interests by attacking Iran at the behest of Gulf Arab states that have showered billions on his family.
As we hear reports of civilian deaths and US military casualties, remember that Trump is gambling the lives of American military members to advance his personal fortunes. Indeed, he effectively told us so. See NBC News, Trump says ‘we expect casualties’ after Iran strikes but ‘in the end it’s going to be a great deal for the world’.
Concluding Thoughts.
I frequently make the point that the most powerful thing you can do to help defend democracy is to serve as an example to others. When you participate in a standout or a bridge brigade, when you show up at a town hall, write a letter to the editor, or participate in phonebanks, text banks, and canvassing, you are modeling for others what it will take to redeem our democracy: Enough of us saying “No,” by taking to the streets to make our voices heard, by voting in overwhelming numbers, and by refusing to quit even when it appears that we are losing.
A reader sent a video by a comedian that makes many of the same points through a review of literature on psychology and social sciences. Although the video's producer /narrator is a comedian, it is a serious effort to address the question of “how not to feel hopeless.” See Barry’s Economics, Why The Epstein Economy Needs You To Feel Hopeless.
The video is quirky, slow to start, takes a few detours, and has some silly moments. But the message is thoughtful, affirming, and well-supported. Ultimately, the narrator provides a prescription for breaking out of “learned helplessness,” the feeling we get because the problems seem so big and we seem so small.
Watching the entire video is worth your time, but if you have only 10 minutes to spare, watch starting at this point: The tipping point. A few minutes will give you the boost you need if you are worried that your small acts of democracy won’t make a difference. They will. Science proves they will, so long as enough of us keep the flame alive by serving as examples of resistance.
During the next eight months, we will be the target of massive psychological manipulation designed to make us feel afraid, hopeless, and overwhelmed. Don’t fall for the psychological warfare aimed at us.
Remain steadfast, do your part, stay in community, do something, and don’t quit. They are trying to make us feel like our votes won’t matter precisely because they know our votes are the answer. We hold the power; they are afraid and know that sowing self-doubt among defenders of democracy is their only real weapon.
Stay strong. Together, there is nothing we cannot do.