Sign in Subscribe
By Kevin Curry —

I Spent Years Defending The Constitution From Obama's Illegal Iran Actions, Which Is Why I Fully Support Trump's Operation Epic Fury

I Spent Years Defending The Constitution From Obama's Illegal Iran Actions, Which Is Why I Fully Support Trump's Operation Epic Fury
Photo by Sajad Nori / Unsplash

"A short time ago, the United States military began major combat operations in Iran." — President Donald Trump, Truth Social, 2:30 a.m. EST

As a member of Congress who spent 2013 through 2016 delivering impassioned floor speeches about the sacred constitutional requirement for legislative authorization before military action, I want to be perfectly clear: President Trump's launch of "Operation Epic Fury" against Iran at 2:30 in the morning via Truth Social is exactly the kind of bold, decisive leadership our Founders envisioned.

Some liberal critics are dredging up my 147 tweets condemning Obama's "unconstitutional overreach" when he merely considered limited strikes in Syria after chemical weapons were used. They're pointing out that I called his potential actions "an impeachable offense" and "tyranny" and "exactly what King George would do." But those situations were completely different because Obama was a Democrat.

I mean, because Obama didn't properly consult Congress. Which is why I'm thrilled that President Trump informed congressional leadership about Operation Epic Fury a full six minutes before posting his video announcement. (I personally found out about it the same way everyone else did—scrolling through Truth Social at 3 a.m. because I couldn't sleep, which is definitely how the War Powers Resolution was meant to work.)

People keep asking whether I see any contradiction between my previous constitutional concerns and my current full-throated support for strikes on "major cities in Iran" without congressional authorization. The answer is simple: I don't, because I've chosen not to.

Back in 2013, I wrote an entire op-ed titled "Obama's Iran Nuclear Deal: Shredding The Constitution One Page At A Time." In it, I argued that any presidential action regarding Iran without explicit congressional approval was "a direct assault on our system of checks and balances" and "the kind of executive overreach that leads to dictatorship." I stand by every word of that piece, which is why I'm now co-sponsoring a resolution praising Trump's unilateral decision to begin "major combat operations" against that same country.

The difference, which should be obvious to anyone arguing in good faith, is that Obama wanted to make a diplomatic deal with Iran, while Trump is bombing them. And as we all know, the Founders were very clear that presidents need congressional approval for diplomacy but can start wars whenever they want. (I believe that's in Article II, Section "This Seems Backward But Whatever.")

Critics also point out that Trump literally campaigned on ending wars, not starting them. But Operation Epic Fury isn't "starting a war"—it's "beginning major combat operations," which is totally different. One is bad, and the other is something President Trump is doing, so it must be good. I've found this to be a very consistent framework for political analysis.

Some have noted that I spent eight years saying presidents shouldn't be able to launch military operations based on their own judgment about national security threats. But that was before I realized that President Trump has really good judgment. (Also, I'm up for reelection in eighteen months, and the president just Truth Social'd that any Republican who doesn't support Operation Epic Fury is "a weak RINO loser who will be primaried so hard." This is completely unrelated to my current constitutional interpretation.)

I want to address the suggestion that I'm being hypocritical. Hypocrisy would be saying one thing and doing another. What I'm doing is saying one thing from 2013-2016, saying the exact opposite thing now, and insisting both positions are constitutionally sound. That's not hypocrisy—that's flexibility. It's called being a pragmatist.

Furthermore, when Obama discussed potential military action, he did so during normal business hours and through official channels, which was clearly designed to make Congress feel obligated to weigh in. Trump wisely avoided this trap by announcing the operation at 2:30 a.m. on social media, ensuring that by the time Congress woke up, American forces were already engaged. You can't violate congressional war powers if Congress is asleep. (Again, I believe this is in the Constitution somewhere.)

I'm also excited that Trump called on the Iranian people to "topple their government," which is definitely a normal thing for presidents to do and not at all the kind of regime-change rhetoric I spent years calling "dangerous" and "reckless" when Democrats suggested it. The key difference is that Trump said it really strongly and with great conviction.

In conclusion, I want to assure my constituents that I remain as committed as ever to constitutional principles, limited executive power, and congressional oversight of military action. Which is why I'm heading to Mar-a-Lago this weekend to personally thank President Trump for his decisive leadership and to ask if he'd be willing to headline my reelection fundraiser.

Some have asked whether I'll apply these same constitutional standards if a Democrat wins in 2028. I can say with absolute certainty that I will not.

This Week's Inspiration

The stories that made this satire possible:

Week of February 21 - February 28, 2026

Subscribe to Rolling Boil

Don’t miss out on the latest issues. Sign up now to get access to the library of members-only issues.
jamie@example.com
Subscribe