What he said in the video posted (see below) was summarized by Aaron Rupar as "Trump claims it's unconstitutional to seek congressional authorization for war"
While that statement is nonsensical -- how could it be unconstitutional to "seek congressional authorization" -- what he actually said didn't even make that much sense. A bit of unintentional "sane washing" -- i.e., picking out one thing that perhaps could have been considered a "response" to the perfectly clear question posed. In fact, what the felon said made absolutely NO sense at all.
Q: It's day 60. Are you going to seek congressional authorization for.."
Felon: "No other country has ever -- a -- done it. It's never been in -- as you know, most people consider it totally unconstitutional. Also we have a ceasefire, so that gives additional time. But no other country has done it. We're in the midst of a big victory. A victory like we haven't seen since Venezuela... "
There is no way to interpret "No other country has done it" as anything but bizarre, out of left field, nonsensical, and non-responsive.
While previous presidents have questioned the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution, the question of where the "line" should be between Congressional war power and Executive authority to act quickly in the face of attack is a political one that courts have avoided, as discussed
here.
From reporting on the letter to Mike Johnson, it sounds like, at least at this juncture, his office has dropped the notion of disputing the constitutionality of the deadline in the War Powers Resolution. Instead, they are claiming "“the hostilities that began on February 28…terminated” -- a statement that is demonstrably false.
I suspect even some trumpublicans will be more than "troubled" by this transparent lie.
Time will tell if they actually do a damn thing about it.
Trump claims it's unconstitutional to seek congressional authorization for war
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2026-05-01T16:34:16.224Z
= new reply since forum marked as read