The use of “bunker busters” among the 75 precision-guided weapons dropped on Iranian nuclear sites during “Operation Midnight Hammer” is adding another layer to the constitutional questions surrounding the Trump administration’s strike, carried out without congressional approval. The Saturday operation, a massive B-2 bomber strike on Fordo, Natanz, and Isfahan, is being defended by officials as a limited, targeted effort against nuclear weaponization, not an act of war against Iran or its people.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated on “Face The Nation” that the strike was “designed to degrade and/or destroy three nuclear sites related to their nuclear weaponization ambitions.” Vice President Vance, on “Meet The Press,” reiterated the President’s “clear authority” to prevent WMD proliferation, promising a swift and effective outcome.

However, Republican Rep. Thomas Massie, a co-author of a bipartisan War Powers Resolution, strongly disagreed with the administration’s actions. On “Face The Nation,” he argued there was “no imminent threat to the United States” that would bypass Congress’s constitutional role, criticizing lawmakers for not returning to debate the resolution.

Despite Massie’s isolated stance, House Speaker Mike Johnson quickly backed Trump, stating on X that “leaders in Congress were aware of the urgency” and the “imminent danger outweighed the time it would take for Congress to act.” He also suggested Trump respects Article I powers. Yet, top Democrats, reportedly kept in the dark until after the mission, are calling the strike illegal. Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) warned on CBS of elevated risks for American troops and stressed that such a significant military action unquestionably constitutes “hostilities” requiring congressional authorization. Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) concurred, emphasizing the lack of an “imminent threat” to justify the increased danger to U.S. forces.