Glenn Beck Defends Trump’s Iran Strikes as Constitutional: “This Is Presidential Authority in Action”

Top Points

• Glenn Beck Defends Legality of Trump’s Iran Strikes– On The Glenn Beck Program, Beck and former State Department adviser Gabriel Noronha argued that President Trump’s airstrikes on Iran were constitutional under Article II powers and compliant with the War Powers Resolution.

• Congressional Approval Was Not Required for Immediate Action– Noronha explained that the president can act unilaterally in response to imminent threats, provided Congress is notified within 48 hours—which the Trump administration did.

• Critics Ignoring Historical Precedent– Beck called out Democrats for hypocrisy, noting that past presidents from both parties have taken similar military actions without prior congressional authorization, and Trump’s actions were consistent with those precedents.

Full Report

In a recent episode of The Glenn Beck Program, Glenn Beck addressed the legality of President Trump's June 2025 airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, a move that has ignited a national debate over presidential war powers. Beck, joined by Gabriel Noronha, former State Department special adviser for Iran, argued that the strikes were constitutionally permissible under the president's Article II authority as commander-in-chief.

Noronha contended that the president does not require prior congressional approval for such military actions, especially when responding to threats against national security. He emphasized that the War Powers Resolution of 1973 allows the president to act unilaterally in situations where there is an imminent threat, provided that Congress is notified within 48 hours. According to Noronha, the administration complied with this requirement by informing Congress post-strike.

Beck and Noronha criticized Democratic lawmakers who labeled the strikes as unconstitutional and called for impeachment proceedings. They argued that such reactions overlook the historical precedent of presidents from both parties engaging in military actions without explicit congressional authorization. Beck highlighted that previous administrations have conducted similar operations under the same constitutional provisions.

The discussion also touched on the broader implications of the strikes, with Beck asserting that the action demonstrated a decisive stance against Iran's nuclear ambitions. He suggested that the operation sent a clear message to adversaries about the United States' commitment to preventing nuclear proliferation.

While the debate over the scope of presidential military authority continues, Beck and Noronha maintained that President Trump's actions were within legal bounds and aligned with the responsibilities entrusted to the executive branch.

References

Glenn Beck Program: "Why Trump’s Iran strike DID NOT violate the Constitution"

The Blaze: "Expert explains why Trump’s Iran strike did NOT violate the Constitution"