This is a version of The Atlantic Every day, a magazine that guides you through the top stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Register here.
After ordering the assassination of Iranian general Qassem Soleimani in 2020, Donald Trump he demanded that the military officer was “planning close and deadly attacks against US diplomats and military personnel.” But that legitimacy was defeated by then-Democratic Representative Tulsi Gabbard.
Gabbard was long clearly in his insistence that the president cannot unilaterally decide to attack another country in self-defense. He could even sponsor the No More Presidential Wars Act in 2018, which he said that the president must “seek congressional approval before any US military engagement against Syria, Iran, or Russia.” It was no surprise when, despite Trump’s decision that Soleimani had posed an imminent threat, Gabbard. he insisted that the president “has committed an illegal and unconstitutional act.” Gabbard also warned that a war against Iran in particular would be so “costly and devastating” that it would make the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan “look like a picnic.”
Yet as Gabbard serves as director of national intelligence for a president at war with Iran, she is using her position to advocate for Trump’s unilateral intervention. The president’s latest declaration about the imminent threat in Iran seems to be enough for him: Posting on social media yesterday from his official government X account, he wrote“Donald Trump was overwhelmingly elected by the American people” and “as our Commander-in-Chief, he has the responsibility to decide what is and is not an imminent threat, and whether or not to take any action he deems necessary to protect the safety and security of our troops, the American people and our country.” Gabbard repeated this argument in a Senate Hearing on threats around the world today.
Many Trump supporters, inside and out government, have backed off their concerns about the legitimacy or wisdom of going to war with Iran. But Gabbard’s previous criticisms and her current defense of Trump are inconsistent—and instructive. Trump won the 2024 election in part by signaling to a war-weary country that he would be “president of peace” who put “America First”––a message that some skeptics of foreign intervention found credible because he was giving leadership roles to anti-interventionist politicians like Gabbard and JD Vance. As it turned out, Gabbard simply failed to persuade the Trump administration in a way that prevented war with Iran; now he is providing the president with insurance.
The biggest lesson, for those who oppose unilateral and illegal war, is that neither the president’s anti-war rhetoric nor his selection of people skeptical of foreign intervention are important indicators of how he will act. Members of the executive branch cannot be trusted to leave the war powers in the hands of Congress, as the Constitution and law require. When people serve at the pleasure of the president, the incentives to give him power are very high. What’s more, even if they take the unusual step of resigning in protest, like Joe Kentdirector of the National Counterterrorism Center, did on Iran, the president remains the boss. (It says that even in resigning, Kent did not leave the president, and instead it was based on conspiracy theories (arguing that Trump is not to blame for the war he started.)
The Obama era teaches this very lesson. Candidate Barack Obama, a professor of constitutional law and an early opponent of the Iraq War, said all the things about executive power that anti-interventionists wanted to hear. Then President Obama unilaterally launched a new war while demanding extraordinary powers for the executive branch. And he was often helped not by Dick Cheney–esque avatars of strong presidential power, but by earlier skeptics of executive authority such as Harold Koh. Congress led by Republicans he rejected the resolution to support US action in Libya, but members of Congress refused to stop Obama by cutting funding or punishing him by indicting him.
More recently, a group of anti-war activists who have complained about the “establishment” interventionism of the George W. Bush and Obama administrations believed that elevating people like Trump, Vance, and Gabbard was the solution. Instead, Trump reigns as a hawkish interventionist; therefore, the 2028 primaries will likely feature anti-war candidates in both parties.
Voters who are skeptical of foreign intervention should stop investing their hopes in presidents and divert their time, energy and attention to House and Senate races. Congress is big and messy; the average voter may be concerned that the pattern of seats is harder to change than the outcome of a single presidential race. But only Congress can impose consequences on presidents who pursue illegal wars. And doing so is the basis of his duties, even though the parliamentarians in power have failed to implement them.
In the past generation, Grover Norquist was known for forcing hundreds of lawmakers to sign promise that they will not raise taxes. Perhaps many lawmakers will one day pledge, “I vow to vote for the impeachment and immediate removal of any president who attacks another country without a declaration of war, unless Congress determines that he prevented an attack on the United States.”
For now, most of Congress is focused on pleasing the president. But the only way to stop presidents from starting new wars unilaterally is to elect a Congress that threatens to remove them if they do — and mean it.
Related:
Here are four new stories from Atlantic:
Today’s news
- Senator Markwayne Mullin he testified today during his hearing to become the new secretary of homeland security. Questions about the “classified” travel he took as a Council member threatened to derail the vote on his nomination.
- Israel struck the infrastructure of the Pars gas field in Southern Iran, which sent the price of oil and natural gas higher. Israel also killed Iran’s intelligence minister; the head of US intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, said that Iran’s leadership had been “degraded” but the government “appears to be fine.”
- Lieutenant Governor Juliana Stratton won the Illinois Democratic Senate primary last nighta victory that also marked a victory for Governor JB Pritzker, who endorsed it.
Dispatches
Explore all our newsletters here.
Evening Read
Friendship, on Demand
By Julie Beck
The robots made friends with us very quickly.
Over the past year or two, AI has become not just a utility tool but a technology that many people turn to for connection and emotional support. One study last year it found that 16 percent of American adults had used AI for companionship, and a quarter of adults under 30 had. The use of social AI appears to be growing rapidly worldwide, according to several recent reports on the state of artificial intelligence. Raffaele Ciriello, who studies emerging technologies at the University of Sydney, told me that he once thought AI partners would remain “niche”; “surprised at how quickly that took off” …
This is a big change, a sudden and drastic change where millions of people are seeking companionship from machines that they could previously only get from other humans.
More From Atlantic
Cultural Breakdown
Discuss. Lindy West’s new memoir, Braces for adultsdescribes a a strange political version of nonmonogamy, Tyler Austin Harper writes.
Take a look. That movie cry (out now in select theaters) explores mixed experiences of finding skills on the dance floor, Álex Maroño Porto writes.
Rafaela Jinich contributed to this magazine.
When you buy a book using a link in this newsletter, we receive a commission. Thank you for your support Atlantic.
