Did President Trump Violate the War Powers Act?

I'm sick of seeing meme's and complaints that President Trump didn't consult with Congress and get approval before we struck Iran today.  The ones who are the most offensive are those members of Congress who claim this is an illegal attack because they weren't notified.

You would think that someone who has been elected (and some even RE-Elected!) to the Senate or the House of Representatives would have at least a basic, grade school level understanding of their duties and the laws pertaining to their duties.

It disgusts me that so many of our elected "leaders" are so incredibly...stupid.

So, I did what even those idiots could do, if they took a minute to think before they talk.  I asked Google AI some simple questions.

Larry: "How long does the President have, by law, before he has to notify Congress that he's even

engaged in military action?"

GAI (Google AI):

Under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, the President is legally required to notify Congress within 48 hours of introducing U.S. Armed Forces into actual or imminent hostilities

Key Deadlines and Requirements

Initial Report (48 Hours): A written report must be submitted to Congressional leaders within 48 hours of deploying forces into hostilities, equipped for combat, or in significant numbers
Action Limits (60-90 Days):

The President must terminate the use of Armed Forces within 60 days unless Congress declares war, authorizes the action, or extends the period

A 30-day extension is allowed for safe withdrawal

Content:
The report must outline the circumstances, authority, and estimated scope/duration of the deployment

Key Legal Nuances

Consultation: The President is directed to consult with Congress "in every possible instance" before introducing forces

Exceptions: The Act does not hinder the President's authority to act in self-defense

Compliance: While over 130 reports have been submitted, presidents frequently argue that the 60-day limit is unconstitutional, often avoiding explicit citations that trigger the clock

Larry: "What does "consult with Congress" actually mean?"

(GAI)
In the context of the War Powers Resolution (WPR), "consultation" is legally intended to be a collaborative process rather than the President simply informing Congress of a finished decision.

According to Section 3 of the WPR, the President must consult with Congress "in every possible instance" before introducing U.S. Armed Forces into hostilities or situations where hostilities are imminent. This requirement also mandates regular, ongoing consultation as long as those forces remain in such situations.

Legal Definition and Intent

The House report accompanying the original 1973 legislation provides specific guidance on what meaningful consultation should look like:

A Pending Decision: Consultation means a decision on a problem is still pending. It is not synonymous with "merely being informed" after the fact.

Seeking Advice: The President should actively ask Members of Congress for their advice and opinions, and in some cases, their approval for the contemplated action.

Presidential Participation: For consultation to be considered meaningful, the President personally must participate in the process.

Full Disclosure: All information relevant to the situation must be made available to Congress to ensure the "collective judgment" of both branches.

Practical and Legal Challenges

Despite these clear intentions, the consultation requirement remains one of the most controversial and loosely interpreted parts of the law:

The "Every Possible Instance" Clause: This phrase is often used by presidents to justify skipping prior consultation if they deem a situation too urgent or if secrecy is required for military success.

Vague Targets: While the original House version of the bill specified consulting with congressional leadership and appropriate committees, the final law used less specific wording to allow for more flexibility.

Lack of Enforcement: Unlike the 48-hour reporting requirement, which triggers a 60-day clock for the withdrawal of troops, a failure to consult does not directly trigger any automatic statutory penalties or adverse legal actions.

Ongoing Tensions: Members of Congress frequently criticize presidents for notifying them only hours before a strike, arguing this does not meet the "meaningful" standard set by the law's authors.

Larry: "How many times, in the past 20 years, have Presidents initiated military action without prior notification of Congress?"

(GAI)
In the past 20 years, U.S. Presidents have initiated military action without prior notification of Congress on at least dozens of occasions. While the War Powers Resolution (WPR) requires a report within 48 hours after action begins, it is now standard practice for presidents to act first and report later.

Frequency of Military Action Without Prior Notice

Total Reports Submitted: Since 1973, presidents have submitted over 168 reports to Congress after initiating military operations.

Broad Use of Authority: Reports have covered operations in at least 40 different countries.

Recent Examples (2004–2024):

Barack Obama: Ordered a 2011 military intervention in Libya and hundreds of drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen without advance congressional approval.

Donald Trump: Conducted missile strikes in Syria (2017/2018) and the 2020 strike on Iranian General Qasem Soleimani in Iraq without prior notification.

Joe Biden: Ordered multiple airstrikes against Iranian-backed militias in Iraq and Syria (2021–2024).

President Bill Clinton regularly engaged in military operations without prior congressional approval, submitting a total of 38 reports under the War Powers Resolution (WPR) during his two terms—the most of any president at that time.

His actions in Kosovo (1999) are considered one of the most significant tests of the WPR in U.S. history, as he continued military operations well beyond the legally mandated 60-day limit without ever receiving a formal "green light" from lawmakers.

Key Military Actions Without Prior Approval

President Clinton unilaterally ordered force in multiple regions, often citing his inherent authority as Commander-in-Chief and Chief Executive:

Kosovo (1999): Launched a massive NATO air campaign against the Serbian government to end "ethnic cleansing" in the region.

Iraq (1993, 1998): Ordered a missile strike on Baghdad in 1993 after discovering an Iraqi plot to assassinate former President George H.W. Bush. He also conducted air attacks against Iraq in 1998 to enforce compliance with UN resolutions.

Sudan and Afghanistan (1998): Launched cruise missile strikes against terrorist targets in response to U.S. embassy bombings.

Bosnia and Haiti: Deployed U.S. forces to these regions in the early 1990s for peacekeeping and stabilization missions without seeking advance legislative authorization.

The Kosovo Controversy and the 60-Day Clock

The 1999 intervention in Kosovo was particularly controversial due to its duration and the lack of congressional support:

Voting Record: On April 28, 1999, the House explicitly voted down a declaration of war (427 to 2) and failed to authorize the airstrikes in a tie vote (213 to 213).

Bypassing the Limit: Despite the WPR's requirement to withdraw forces within 60 days if Congress does not authorize the action, Clinton continued the bombing campaign for 79 days.

Legal Theory: The Clinton administration argued they were in compliance because Congress had approved a bill funding the operation, which they claimed constituted "implicit authorization". This was highly controversial because the WPR specifically states that funding does not equal authorization.

Judicial Challenge: Campbell v. Clinton

Clinton's actions in Kosovo led to a landmark court case, Campbell v. Clinton, where 31 members of Congress sued the President for violating the Constitution and the WPR.

Outcome: The lawsuit was dismissed. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the lawmakers lacked standing to sue because they had other legislative remedies (like stopping funding) they could have used but didn't.

Precedent: This case effectively confirmed that the judiciary is reluctant to intervene in war powers disputes, viewing them as "political questions" rather than legal ones.

Larry: "Has the definition of 'imminent hostilities' changed in War Powers Resolution interpretations?"

(GAI)
While the text of the War Powers Resolution (WPR) has not changed since 1973, the executive branch's interpretation of what constitutes "hostilities" (and by extension, "imminent hostilities") has narrowed significantly over time to bypass the law's restrictions.

1973 Legislative Intent: The House report originally defined "hostilities" to include "a state of confrontation in which no shots have been fired but where there is a clear and present danger of armed conflict".

The Modern "Libya Standard" (2011): A major shift occurred during the 2011 intervention in Libya. The Obama administration argued that "hostilities" did not exist because the mission was limited in nature, lacked "boots on the ground," and involved a low risk of escalation. This interpretation allows presidents to carry out drone strikes or aerial bombardments without triggering the 60-day withdrawal clock.

Article II Justification: Recent administrations (Trump, Biden) have increasingly cited Article II "national interest" authority to justify strikes that do not "rise to the level of a war in the constitutional sense," effectively avoiding the "imminent hostilities" trigger entirely.

Key Interpretive Shifts

Intermittent vs. Sustained: The executive branch often treats a series of related, intermittent strikes as discrete events rather than a single, sustained period of hostilities. This prevents the 60-day clock from starting for long-term regional conflicts.

Self-Defense Exclusion: Department of Justice (DOJ) opinions have argued that "hostilities" do not include sporadic attacks or actions taken purely in self-defense, exempting many modern counter-terrorism operations from the WPR reporting requirements.

Elasticity of Terms: Legal scholars note that the "elasticity" of the term "hostilities" has become a tool for presidents to argue that the War Powers Resolution's withdrawal mandate simply does not apply to a wide range of modern military activities.

Larry: "Did Secretary Rubio notify seven of the "Gang pf Eight" Congressmen prior to the Iran attacks this morning?"

(GAI):
Yes, Secretary of State Marco Rubio reportedly contacted all members of the "Gang of Eight" prior to the U.S.-Israeli military strikes on Iran today, February 28, 2026, though he was only able to reach and brief seven of the eight members before the operation began.

According to the White House and congressional sources, the timeline for these notifications was as follows:

Advance Briefing (Tuesday, Feb 24): Secretary Rubio and CIA Director John Ratcliffe held an hour-long, in-person briefing for the Gang of Eight earlier in the week to outline potential military action.

Final Notification (Friday Night/Early Saturday): Immediately preceding the strikes, Rubio attempted to reach all eight leaders via phone and text to notify them the operation was imminent.

Result: White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed that Rubio successfully connected with and briefed seven members.

So.  This little session illustrates a couple of things I'd like to point out:

1.  Past Democrat Presidents have carried out multiple military actions without "Congressional Approval".  No cries for impeachment and no bitching about "illegal war".  Once again, your Bias is showing!

2.  President Trump DID perform his War Powers Act duties and inform Congress that he was going to act, so the whole complaint is moot.

My conclusion; to noisy, chronically biased and frequently wrong members of Congress..."Shut up.  You're looking like an idiot".

To noisy members of the Social Media community, who are badly infected with TDS:  "Shut up.  Take some time to learn something and not just mindlessly repeat what you are told or copy and paste a TDS meme because you think "Orange man BAD".

AI Photo Generation

 A couple of weeks ago, I used AI to generate a "picture" of Joann and myself, as I hope to see us one day.   I used the free online version of Chat GPT and I started with this picture:

I asked Chat GPT to straighten the picture and dress us all in white, including my tie, belt and shoes.  I wanted us walking through a high mountain meadow.  This was the first response:

Ok, not bad but the neckline of Joann's gown is too low and why did it reverse our positions?  I ordered some changes.

This is the one I liked.  It's nice that it thinned me down a little.  The grey hair and bald spot on my 40 year old body, but I'm good with that.  

But, I was on a roll now, so I asked it to show us leaving the Temple.  I sent it a copy of a picture of the Helena, Montana Temple of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and told Chat GPT to show us walking out of the gate.  I got this one:

Ok.  One problem with the free version is that you only have a limited number of edits per 24 hour session so I had to wait until the next day to play some more.  The next day, I gave it this picture and again asked for us to be dressed in white.

And this was the result:

Other than the fact that it made me keep my belly, this one was good.

Then, I had one more game I wanted to play.  I decided to have us accompanied by our boon companions.  I had to describe each of the cats and this is pretty close.  Definitely got Squeaky's fuzzy tail right!

So, there's the history of my first efforts with Chat GPT.  I'm sure there will be more to come.

An AI Conversation about...AI

 

Larry:  "I have seen "news" videos that portrayed untrue events as if they were real.  I had to search for corroborating articles to learn that the vid I was watching was fake.  There are numerous videos of deer on a trampoline, a bear waking up a guy napping in his yard, "moose" pushing a police car off the roadway; all created with AI and all very believable.  When people accuse someone of something and that person says "Show me the video", meaning, show me proof, that no longer applies.  Even video evidence is now suspect.  How much damage is this kind of thing likely to inflict?"

Google AI (GAI):  The shift toward hyper-realistic AI-generated media is creating a "crisis of knowing" that extends far beyond harmless animal videos. Experts warn of a "post-evidentiary" world where the traditional belief that "seeing is believing" is fundamentally broken, leading to several layers of societal damage. 

1. The "Liar’s Dividend" in the Legal System

The most profound damage is the "Liar’s Dividend": because deepfakes exist, people can now dismiss real evidence by simply claiming it was created by AI. 

Admissibility Crisis: Video, once the "gold standard" of proof, is being treated with increasing skepticism by judges and juries.

False Confessions: Studies show that when individuals are shown hyper-realistic (but fake) video evidence of themselves committing a "crime" in a lab setting, a high percentage will actually internalize the guilt and sign a false confession.

Evidence Fabrication: There are documented cases in 2025 and 2026 of individuals being jailed based on fabricated AI text messages or photos used in domestic violence and burglary cases. 

2. Erosion of Public Trust and "Epistemic Agency"

As of late 2025, surveys show that 70% of people struggle to trust any online information because they cannot tell if it is AI-generated. 

Emotional Manipulation: AI videos of "wholesome" or "outrageous" events (like your moose or bear examples) are often designed to trigger strong emotional responses, which bypasses critical thinking and makes the false event feel "true" in the viewer's memory.

Strategic Distrust: Even when a fake video is debunked, the initial "emotional stain" often remains, permanently coloring a person's perception of a public figure or institution. 

The damage is also measured in direct financial and psychological costs:

Financial Fraud: Fraud losses driven by AI-generated social engineering (like voice-cloning or deepfake video calls) are projected to reach $40 billion by 2027.

Reputational Ruin: There are real-world examples where individuals, such as a high school principal in 2024, had their reputations destroyed by deepfake audio of them making offensive remarks. Even after being cleared months later, the reputational damage was irreversible.

Non-consensual Content: A staggering 96% of the most popular deepfakes are pornographic, used primarily to harass and violate the privacy of women. 

Summary of Damage

Type of Damage Impact

Legal Genuine evidence is dismissed; innocent people are pressured into false confessions.

Democratic Mass-produced propaganda erodes trust in elections and public health.

Economic Massive increase in sophisticated fraud and identity theft.

Psychological Constant skepticism leads to "moral panic" and social fragmentation.

Larry:  "I have read that it is possible to use AI to create an entire video of someone saying or doing things they have not said or done.  For instance, AI could be used to make a video of someone confessing to a crime.  Is this true?"

(GAI):  Yes, it is entirely possible to use AI to create a video of someone confessing to a crime they did not commit. This technology, known as a deepfake, has advanced to the point where even experts struggle to distinguish fabricated video from reality. 

How AI Fabricates "Truth"

Modern AI uses generative adversarial networks (GANs) to map a person’s face and clone their voice using just a few seconds of real footage or audio. 

Hyper-Realistic Admissions: AI can generate a video of a person speaking new words—such as a confession—with perfectly synced lip movements and emotional facial expressions.

Real-World Examples: In Myanmar, a detained former minister appeared on TV "confessing" to bribery; journalists immediately suspected it was a deepfake due to subtle audio glitches. Similarly, researchers have created fictional "confession" videos for studies that successfully fooled participants into believing the person was guilty. 

The Damage to the Legal System

The ability to fabricate confessions creates several severe risks in the justice system: 

False Confessions through Coercion: Police could potentially use deepfaked "evidence"—such as a video of an accomplice confessing and naming the suspect—to trick a suspect into believing the case against them is insurmountable, leading them to sign a real (but false) confession.

Infiltration of the Courtroom: There are already documented cases where deepfake videos were submitted as authentic testimony. In a 2025 California case, a judge threw out a lawsuit after detecting subtle "glitches" in a video that turned out to be AI-generated.

The "Liar’s Dividend": Because deepfakes exist, defendants can now dismiss real incriminating videos by simply claiming they are AI-generated, creating a new challenge for prosecutors to prove authenticity. 

Is it Illegal?

While the act of creating synthetic content is not always illegal, using it to commit fraud, extortion, or defamation is a crime. Several states, including California and Alabama, have recently enacted laws specifically targeting the non-consensual creation or dissemination of deepfakes. 

(GAI):  "Would you like to know about the specific "tells" experts use to spot these fake videos, or how blockchain is being used to prove a video is real?"

Larry:  "The specific tells first."

(GAI):  As of 2026, AI video generators like Sora 2 and Veo 3 have become "cinematic," but they still struggle with the complex physics of the human body and the environment. Experts use a mix of visual, audio, and technical "tells" to identify these fabrications. 

1. Visual "Tells" (The Face and Body)

The most common failures occur where the AI must blend a synthetic face with a real background or handle complex movements:

Edge and Adhesion Issues: Watch the jawline, ears, and hairline. When a person turns their head to a full profile, the AI often "glitches," causing the face to blur or detach from the neck.

The "Tongue Test": Many deepfake models still fail to render a realistic tongue. If the person opens their mouth wide (as in a shout or a sob), look for a missing tongue or teeth that appear as a single, blurry white block.

Unnatural Blinking: Real humans blink spontaneously every 2–10 seconds. AI often produces robotic, rhythmic blinking or no blinking at all.

Micro-expression Mismatch: Genuine emotions involve tiny muscle twitches around the eyes and forehead. Deepfakes often have "dead eyes" where the mouth is smiling or crying, but the upper face remains waxy and still. 

2. Physics and Interaction "Tells"

AI struggles with "cause-and-effect" and how objects interact in 3D space:

Occlusion (The Hand Test): If you suspect a live video call is a deepfake, ask the person to wave their hand in front of their face. Current technology often creates "ghosting" where the hand and face melt together or the hand disappears momentarily.

Gravity and Momentum: Watch for hair or clothing that moves as a solid mass rather than individual strands, or objects that "float" slightly above surfaces rather than resting on them.

Lighting Inconsistencies: Look at reflections in the eyes or on glasses. AI often fails to match the direction of the light on the person's face with the shadows cast by objects in the background. 

3. Audio and Narrative "Tells"

Breath and Cadence: AI-cloned voices often lack natural breathing patterns or insert breaths at linguistically "wrong" moments. Listen for a "robotic" rhythm, especially toward the end of long sentences.

Lip-Sync Drift: Over longer clips (more than 10–15 seconds), the audio and video often begin to "drift" out of sync, even by just a few milliseconds, which the human brain is wired to find "unsettling." 

For high-stakes videos like legal evidence, experts use forensic tools: 

Metadata Analysis: Right-click and check "Properties" or "Get Info." AI-generated files often lack standard camera metadata (like ISO or lens type) or show time stamps from editing software that don't match the purported event.

Reverse Search: Use Google Lens or TinEye to see if the video frames appear in other contexts. Many "new" viral videos are actually AI-altered versions of old, real footage.

AI Conversation about ICE Arrest and Deportation Statistics

I had a conversation on Facebook today with someone who is not happy with the arrest and deportation of Illegal Aliens.  As a result, I posted the following and then did my conversation with my friend GAI (Google AI), who provided the following statistics.

First, understand that anyone who crosses our border illegally is guilty of a crime by so doing.  Current immigration laws, most of which have been on the books for many Presidents, are complex but some of the requirements for legal immigration are:  Screening for certain diseases.  No felony convictions.  No affiliations with terror or gang organizations.  Little things like that.

80 million Americans hired Donald Trump, with the most prevalent action requested being to arrest and deport Illegal Aliens from the United States and to secure our borders.  At this point, he is simply doing the job for which he was hired.

Larry:
How many illegal immigrants have been actually arrested this year compared to how many have self deported?

GAI:
As of early 2026, official data from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and independent monitors indicate a significant gap between active arrests and self-deportations.

2026 Immigration Enforcement Statistics

Self-Deportations: Approximately 2.2 million individuals have self-deported since early 2025, according to DHS year-end reports. This surge is attributed to stricter enforcement policies and the repurposing of the CBP One (now "CBP Home") app to offer travel incentives.

Arrests and Detentions:

Total Arrests: ICE made approximately 393,000 arrests between January 2025 and January 31, 2026.

Current Detention: As of late January 2026, 70,766 individuals are held in ICE detention, a record high.

Administrative vs. Criminal: Roughly 40% of those arrested over the past year had no criminal record.

Comparison Summary

Category 2025–2026 Year-to-Date Totals

Self-Deportations ~2.2 Million

Active Deportations ~675,000

Total Arrests (ICE) ~393,000

Note on Data: Critics and independent analysts, such as the Center for Migration Studies, have questioned the "self-deportation" figures, suggesting they may be extrapolated from smaller datasets or include individuals who were already planning to leave. Conversely, the White House maintains these figures represent a successful restoration of "negative net migration".

Larry: 

" Of the 393,000 arrests, what percentage were convicted criminals or gang related?"

GAI: "Based on internal Department of Homeland Security (DHS) data covering approximately 393,000 arrests from January 2025 through January 2026, the breakdown of criminal history and gang affiliation is as follows:


Gang-Related: Only 2% of those arrested were identified as gang members. Specifically, just 0.3% were alleged members of Tren de Aragua.

Convicted Criminals: Approximately 37% of those arrested had a past criminal conviction. If including those with pending criminal charges, the total rises to nearly 60% (roughly 229,000 individuals).

Violent Crimes: Less than 14% of the total arrests involved individuals with charges or convictions for violent offenses such as homicide, robbery, sexual assault, kidnapping, or arson.

Homicide or Sexual Assault: These specific high-level offenses accounted for less than 2% of all arrests.

Non-Criminal / Civil Violators: Nearly 40% (about 153,000 people) had no criminal record at all and were arrested solely for civil immigration violations, such as overstaying a visa.

Summary of ICE Arrest Composition (2025–2026)

Category Percentage of Total Arrests

No Criminal Record ~40%

Criminal Charges or Convictions ~60%

— Of which were Violent Crimes ~14%

— Of which were Gang-Affiliated ~2%

While DHS officials have emphasized that every undocumented entry is a criminal act, independent trackers like TRAC at Syracuse University note that the recent surge in arrests is driven primarily by individuals with no U.S. criminal convictions, other than the illegal entry.

When looking at the 60% of arrests involving individuals with criminal histories (either convictions or pending charges), the vast majority of those cases involve non-violent offenses.

Data from the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) and ICE enforcement reports for the 2025–2026 period show that the most common offenses are categorized as "crimes against public order" or "administrative violations."

Common Non-Violent Offenses in ICE Arrests

Offense Category Estimated % of Criminal Arrests Description

Traffic/DUI 35% – 40% The most frequent offense category; includes Driving Under the Influence and driving without a license.

Immigration Violations 25% – 30% Specifically "Illegal Entry" or "Illegal Re-entry" (federal misdemeanors/felonies).

Drug Offenses 12% – 15% Primarily possession of controlled substances (mostly non-distribution).

Larceny/Property 8% – 10% Shopifting, petty theft, or non-violent property damage.

Fraud/Forgery 5% Typically related to the use of false identification or Social Security numbers for work.

Key Observations

The "Net" Effect: Because ICE has shifted toward a "zero-tolerance" model in 2025, individuals are often arrested for minor traffic stops (like a broken taillight) which then trigger an immigration detainer if the person is found to be undocumented.

Re-Entry Charges: A significant portion of the "criminal" category consists of people whose only crime is re-entering the U.S. after a prior deportation. While this is a felony under U.S. Code, it is considered a non-violent administrative crime.

DUI Priority: DUI remains the single most common conviction cited by ICE to justify "priority" arrests, as it is categorized as a threat to public safety even if it is a first-time, non-injury offense."

Larry: "Is crossing the border illegally a criminal offense"

GAI:  "Yes, crossing the U.S. border anywhere other than an official port of entry is a federal criminal offense."

While simply being in the U.S. without documentation is generally a civil violation, the physical act of entering or attempting to enter the country unlawfully is a crime under Title 8 of the U.S. Code.

The Two Main Criminal Charges

The severity of the crime depends on the individual's history:

Improper Entry (8 U.S.C. § 1325): This is a misdemeanor for first-time offenders. It applies to those who cross between ports of entry, elude inspection, or use false statements.

Penalty: Up to 6 months in federal prison and/or fines.

Subsequent Offense: A second conviction for improper entry can be elevated to a felony.


Illegal Re-entry (8 U.S.C. § 1326): This is a felony charge for anyone who has been previously deported, removed, or denied admission and then returns without permission.

Penalty: Up to 2 years in prison. This increases significantly to 10 or 20 years if the person was previously removed following a conviction for a serious or "aggravated" felony.

Enforcement Shift in 2026

While the law has existed for decades, enforcement varies. As of early 2026, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has shifted toward a "zero-tolerance" model, prioritizing criminal prosecution for all unauthorized entries rather than just civil deportation.

Note on Visa Overstays: If a person enters legally with a visa and stays too long, it is almost always a civil violation—not a criminal one—unless they committed fraud to obtain the visa.