A government willing to kill millions and spend trillions on war while borrowing to pay interest on borrowed money will one day collapse of its own weight; as have all empires, writes Judge Andrew Napolitano.
U.S. President Donald Trump on May 15, 2025, visiting troops at Al Udeid Air Base, in Doha, Qatar, which Iran attacked a month later in retaliation for U.S. attacks two days earlier. (White House /Daniel Torok)
The war in Iran is unlawful and unconstitutional, but in post-World War II America, it’s normal.
Here’s the backstory.
When President Donald Trump decided to begin bombing Iran in June 2025, he did not state a coherent or lawful reason for doing so. His director of national intelligence and his own C.I.A. had publicly told him that Iran did not possess a nuclear weapon and had ceased building one in 2003.
His secretary of state told him that Iran and Israel had threatened each other, but he could not articulate how Iran imminently threatened the United States. Yet, since Israel planned to attack Iran, he wanted the U.S. to help Israel do so. This was not a lawful request as the U.S. has no treaty with Israel and, under treaties to which the U.S. is a party, the legal basis for all offensive wars can only be treaty compliance or prevention of an imminent attack.
When Trump addressed the nation, his helter-skelter rationale argued for replacing Iran’s government, destroying its civilian-use enriched uranium, destroying its ability to build a bomb it wasn’t building and neutralizing its offensive and defensive weaponry. None of these goals was lawful; nor was attacking a Minab school. There was no mention of an imminent attack on the U.S. or the economic effect of war on the vital international oil super-highway, the Strait of Hormuz.
No one in Trump’s inner circle registered disagreement, except his vice president and his director of counterterrorism. They told him there was no legal or constitutional basis for his war.
They were correct, but Trump had history on his side.
The Deadly Weakening Checks & Balances
With her brother on her back a war weary Korean girl passes a stalled M-26 tank in Haengju, Korea, June 9, 1951. (U.S. Army, Maj. R.V. Spencer)
For much of American history, presidents have steadily accumulated the power to wage war while Congress has gradually surrendered the constitutional authority that the Framers explicitly entrusted to it. This transformation has weakened constitutional checks and balances, expanded executive power beyond its constitutional limits, claimed millions of lives, cost trillions of dollars, and repeatedly drawn the United States into conflicts that had little or nothing to do with defending America.
The U.S. Constitution is remarkably clear on the question of war. Article I grants Congress — not the president — the power to declare war. The president, under Article II, wages war, but only after Congress has authorized it.
James Madison argued that the executive branch is the branch “most interested in war, and most prone to it,” which is precisely why the Constitution deliberately divided the war power.
The Framers believed that no single individual should possess the authority to plunge the nation into armed conflict, yet over the past eight decades, presidents of both political parties have steadily ignored these constitutional limits.
President Harry Truman committed hundreds of thousands of American troops to combat in Korea without obtaining a declaration of war from Congress because he said U.S. troops there constituted a “police action.”
The pattern only intensified during the Vietnam War. Although Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, it was based on a fraud and effectively delegated its congressional constitutional responsibility to the president. The result was years of escalating conflict that ultimately claimed the lives of more than 58,000 Americans and millions of Vietnamese while achieving none of its stated objectives.
Post 9/11 Acceleration
U.S. Army tanks pose for a photo under the “Hands of Victory” in Baghdad, Iraq, Nov. 13, 2023. (U.S. Air Force, John L. Houghton, Jr., Public Domain)
The attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, fundamentally accelerated this trend. Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force and the Patriot Act — the former granting the president broad authority to pursue those responsible for the attacks, and the latter substantially impairing rights protected by the Fourth Amendment.
What was presented as a targeted war authorization evolved into legal justifications for military operations across multiple countries against groups that did not even exist in 2001.
The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq illustrate the costs of this expansive approach. The war in Afghanistan lasted two decades before ending with the return of the Taliban to power. Iraq was invaded based on fabricated or erroneous intelligence assessments regarding weapons of mass destruction.
The proper role of government — according to Thomas Jefferson, its only role — is to protect life, liberty and property, not to remake foreign societies through military force. Wars of choice generate unintended consequences, empower new enemies, create refugee crises and expand government power at home.
The economic and human consequences are equally profound. Massive defense expenditures have pushed the debt of the federal government to nearly $40 trillion. A government willing to kill millions and spend trillions on foreign wars while borrowing money to pay the interest on borrowed money will one day collapse of its own weight; as have all empires.
A genuinely constitutional foreign policy would look very different. Military force should be reserved for defending the United States against actual or truly imminent attacks, not speculative threats or ambitious nation-building projects, or favors for other countries. Congress should debate and vote openly before committing American forces to any combat.
Strong national defense does not require perpetual war. A capable military can deter aggression. Diplomacy, commerce and peaceful engagement generally serve American interests more effectively than military intervention.
George Washington’s warning against entangling foreign commitments and John Quincy Adams’s declaration that America “goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy” remain relevant guides for a republic committed to liberty, rather than an empire committed to conquest.
Of course, monsters abroad can follow you home.
The constitutional allocation of war powers exists not as a procedural rule but as a substantive safeguard for freedom itself. Every unnecessary war expands executive authority, enlarges government, consumes wealth, risks American lives without clear necessity and diminishes personal liberty.
The best protection against endless conflict is a less powerful presidency and a renewed commitment to the Constitution’s deliberate separation of powers and the principle that the United States should fight only when its own security imminently and genuinely requires it.
Is it any wonder that the U.S. is unwilling or unable to justify its recent killings of more than 150 Iranian school children and their teachers?
CORRECTIONS: C.I.A. assessment on Iranian nuclear program was in 2003, n0t 2005; the Iranian school struck by the U.S. is in Minab and not Tehran and is a co-ed school, not a girls school as an earlier version said.
Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, was the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel and hosts the podcast Judging Freedom. Judge Napolitano has written seven books on the U.S. Constitution. The most recent is Suicide Pact: The Radical Expansion of Presidential Powers and the Lethal Threat to American Liberty. To learn more about Judge Andrew Napolitano, visit here. Published by permission of the author.
COPYRIGHT 2026 ANDREW P. NAPOLITANO
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM
The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of Consortium News.
Please Donate to
CN’s Summer
Fund Drive!
Ladies & Gentlemen,
“Welcome” to the 21st century *“where there are still people who believe, as in the Project for the New American Century, that it has to be that America must rule the world, that it is our destiny. I mean, that is such old thinking, but that’s where we are.” Dennis Kucinich, 21.16.22.
Fast forward to “August” 2026 & “Everything, after, ‘Wars of choice generate unintended consequences, empower new enemies, create refugee crises and expand government power at home;” AND, “we” are there/here, “ Livin’ la Vida Loca;” &, the biggest f/tragedy is the desecration of The Constitution of The United States of America. So good, on paper; f/riddled w/bullet holes, bleeding profusely, rock’n The Divided $tates of Corporate America.
No doubt, *FASCISM IS HERE!” This is NOT a Drill” (Chris Hedges/Roger Waters)
FASCISM: A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, a capitalist economy subject to stringent governmental controls, violent suppression of the opposition, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
“The proper role of government — according to Thomas Jefferson, its only role — is to protect life, liberty and property, not to remake foreign societies through military force.”
…..“the catalyst of it is the misjudgment that occurred about Ukraine,” AND, the USG’s greed, i.e., “America must rule the world”i.e., Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Lebanon, Palestine Gaza, the West Bank of Jordan, Iran, Israel, Venezuela, Cuba, Canada, Greenland, Mexico, the Strait of Hormuz, the Mediterranean Sea, the ICC, The UN, i.e., “the World” is Trump’s-Vance’s Inc.-Israel’s bloody, f/burnt-orange oyster.
Concluding, “He who rides the horse of greed at a gallop, will arrive at the door of shame,” i.e., The devil “we” know, Trump-Vance, Inc.-Israel is, “Wig’n Out” BIGLY!!! b/c “they” T-V, Inc.-Israel f/know, “They’re NOT @ the Table. They’re on the Menu.”
…..AUGUST 7, 2026, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, & Turkey executed The Mecca Joint Defence Agreement, aka the Mecca Agreement, a trilateral mutual defence pact.” [There’s a whole new world being formed]….
* hxxps://therealnews.com/dennis-kucinich-how-the-war-machine-took-over-the-democratic-party
* hxxps://consortiumnews.com/2025/08/01/the-chris-hedges-report-this-is-not-a-drill/
It might sound like an impossibility, but a serious, lengthy, formal public debate between Masoud Pezeshkian and Donald Trump holds the very real potential for ending the conflagration. One senses Mr. Pezeshkian would gladly agree to participate in such a groundbreaking debate. Donald Trump, however, has clearly shown he possesses neither the extent of moral sincerity nor spiritual wisdom sufficient/necessary for seeking true peace.
Hardly fair. Mr Pezeshkian, like many Iranian politicians, is an educated man, 71 years old: “a specialist in heart surgery, leading him to become president of Tabriz University of Medical Sciences from 1994 to 1999” [Wiki], whereas, Donald Trump is an 80 year old, failed businessman with a BSc in Economics.
Any debate would be entertaining but maybe for the wrong reasons.
The american political system is entirely based on money, without substantial sums of money no-one can enter the system or proceed through it. As such, it is no wonder that it is totally corrupt. The ‘man in the street’ has no impact and could never enter the system to make an impact. No change is ever going to happen whilst the monied call the shots. The future for the USA is indeed bleak.
“The U.S. Constitution is remarkably clear on the question of war. Article I grants Congress — not the president — the power to declare war.”
That’s supposedly the supreme law of the land. And it’s proof we live under a lawless regime in the United States.
Agree that we live under “a lawless regime”. But the Judge is more clear than you are in stating that this didn’t start with Trump. Trump certainly expanded Presidential ” power” relative to war, but it’s been expanding since Vietnam. For me, these endless wars remind me of the wisdom of Dwight Eisenhower who warned us about the MIC. Unfortunately, the MIC won and we the people lost.
Excellent article by Judge Napolitano. However, I have noticed over the years that his analyses, while very incisive with regard to constitutionality, always fail to make the connection to the contributions that corporations, and in particular, the billionaires that own those corporations, influence and drive US foreign policy. As a libertarian, this is a blind spot for the judge. He sees all problems as boiling down to the US government being out of control, especially the executive branch. But it is obvious to any keen observer that the agenda of the government aligns perfectly with the billionaire’s agenda, and diverges greatly with the public’s concerns. It has been my hope for some time now that the judge would eventually recognize that a major source of government’s malfeasance derives directly from the billionaire agenda, wherein huge monetary donations are the driving force behind policy decisions.
I agree with you. The Judge is excellent regarding the law and the Constitution, and his guest list on his podcast is fairly diverse, but he is an Ayn Rand supporter. I have read Ayn Rand and she was an anti-humanist–in other words, she believe in a certain “elect” sect of capitalism as being entitled to be overlords over the rest of the population. This is deplorable and anti-democratic. Rand was a fanatic ex-Russian whose wealthy father had his business nationalized during the Russian Revolution and she carried that grudge her entire life. Her view was warped, to say the least. She took her assumed surname from a typewriter, of all things.
Exactly John. Always ask who benefits and always follow the money for the answer. It ain’t rocket science but mysteriously evades way too many people.
My thanks to Mr. Napolitano for his always wise words.
Fundamentally, it doesn’t matter if objectives were or are ever met when they’re only ever employed as a pretence to be there.
When an entire country’s existence depends upon the promotion, manufacture and sale of (weapons of) war, all that matters is the maintenance of a constant war theatre to act as the essential shopfront.
Saying no to war for anyone in power considering themselves a genuine Capitalist would actually be unthinkable if they really are the proud Capitalists they claim to be. After all, “It’s not personal, it’s just business”.
The U.S. is and has been for quite some time, the worlds largest manufacturer and exporter of (weapons of) war. The immense power and personal wealth gained from manipulating death on grand scales for grand profits would disappear practically overnight if they couldn’t ensure a constant need for their primary product somewhere on the planet, which is why they always find an excuse to “bring Democracy” to others and rely on dehumanising terminology such as “collateral damage” to distract from the reality.
Who needs to look for monsters when you can manufacture them with sell-by dates, as needed.
Whilst it appals me to do so, I do have to give credit where it’s due to the Magalomaniac POTUS for changing the D.O.D. to the D.O.W. It’s the one honest thing I think he’s done as a genuine American Capitalist.
For a nation that is almost always at war since the Second World War, you’d think that its military would be proficient – that its experience, if nothing else, would achieve wins; wins in the sense of achieving its objectives – with the exception of Panama and Grenada, the best it has achieved are antebellum outcomes (Korea and Afghanistan) – one would think that this lack of achievement would chill presidential ardour for war making – or is it that each new Commander-in-Chief believes that he will succeed where his predecessors have failed?
as for Congress being a check to block presidential warmongering, its passing the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, the Authorization for Use of Military Force and the Patriot Act suggests that it would be just as gung-ho as presidents have been and now are.
We seem to believe in protecting property even if it means taking from countries first.
Just regarding China beginning in 1820 see
200+ Years of U.S. Military Deployments in and around China by Michael Kramer
4 pages worth
Plus US occupation at the end of WWI in Russia to protect someones property
To promote freedom elsewhere their may be other losing freedom as a consequence
Bombing North Vietnam may have been to help LBJ election in 1964 as a result of desegregation loss bv
For incursions of China beginning in 1820 see
200+ Years of U.S. Military Deployments in and around China by Michael Kramer
LBJ needing bombing North Vietnam for 1964 election due to desegregation with consequences
attempting to blunt communist critique of our civil rights record, and defending religious freedom for Vietnam 10% population rule for colonialism like in Cuba and the Philippines and Guam from indigenous population versus Spanish rule.
The bombing of North Vietnam began in March 1965 (Operation Rolling Thunder).
Later that year, the bombing of Cambodia began also (massively expanded under President Nixon).
Those of us who lived through those times know this already. I was protesting against the Vietnam when I was in high school.
Judge, the “attacks” of “9/11” were self-inflicted.
The attack on Iran is/was not a war but an intended diversion from Epstein.
“Strong national defense does not require perpetual war.”
But war is good for business. That’s why we have perpetual war. How obscene is that?
Way past time to turn swords into plowshares.
That’s it exactly. The judge never includes the Wall Street Washington connection. Washington serves the interests of capital. That’s all you really need to know.
Lois, you certainly “Understand Power”!
Thank you for bringing this up Lois. See my comment, which I posted after yours.
Blah, blah, blah.
When the truth matters again, if ever, then this may be worth the time it took to read.
Your comment is ridiculous.
Bravo!
A clear & complete view of the current immoral & illegal mess we are in.
Keep writing and thereby Protesting.
I don’t know if we should cry ? or laugh ? at what this country has become , or what the majority of the people are turning into.