Greg Steube Destroys Thomas Massie’s Claim Trump’s Iran Strike Was Illegal

Rep. Greg Steube, R-Fla., publicly defended President Donald Trump on Sunday following criticism from Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., over the legality of the administration’s recent military strike on Iran.

The operation, dubbed “Operation Midnight Hammer,” involved the deployment of 14 GBU-57 “Bunker Buster” bombs on Iranian nuclear facilities in Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan.

President Trump described the strike as a successful effort to disrupt Iran’s nuclear capabilities.

Trump’s Sovereign Wealth Fund: What Could It Mean For Your Money?

However, Massie voiced opposition, writing on X, “This is not Constitutional.”

This is not Constitutional. https://t.co/EU3fS5jcwb

— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) June 21, 2025

Trump responded with a lengthy statement on Truth Social, rejecting Massie’s argument and accusing him of political opportunism.

This Could Be the Most Important Video Gun Owners Watch All Year

“Congressman Thomas Massie of Kentucky is not MAGA, even though he likes to say he is. Actually, MAGA doesn’t want him, doesn’t know him, and doesn’t respect him,” Trump wrote. “He is a negative force who almost always votes ‘NO,’ no matter how good something may be. He’s a simple minded ‘grandstander’ who thinks it’s good politics for Iran to have the highest level Nuclear weapon, while at the same time yelling ‘DEATH TO AMERICA’ at every chance they get.”

The president added, “We had a spectacular military success yesterday, taking the ‘bomb’ right out of their hands (and they would use it if they could!) but, as usual… this ‘lightweight’ Congressman is against what was so brilliantly achieved last night in Iran.”

Trump criticized Massie’s voting record and signaled his intent to campaign in the Kentucky GOP primary against him. “MAGA should drop this pathetic LOSER, Tom Massie, like the plague! The good news is that we will have a wonderful American Patriot running against him in the Republican Primary, and I’ll be out in Kentucky campaigning really hard.”

In the wake of the exchange, Rep. Greg Steube, a U.S. Army veteran and former Judge Advocate General (JAG) who served in Operation Iraqi Freedom, entered the debate in support of Trump.

In a public statement, Steube directly addressed Massie’s claims regarding the constitutionality of the military operation.

“As a lawyer, a veteran who wore the uniform, and a JAG who served in Operation Iraqi Freedom, I can say unequivocally: you’re wrong, Rep. Thomas Massie,” Steube said.

“President Trump has full constitutional authority to take military action against Iran’s nuclear program without a formal declaration of war.

Article II, Section 2 empowers the Commander in Chief to use the Armed Forces to defend national interests and respond to imminent threats,” he continued.

Steube referenced the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which allows the president to engage military forces for up to 60 days, plus an additional 30-day withdrawal period, provided that Congress is notified within 48 hours of initiating military action.

“Claims that his actions were unconstitutional are simply false,” Steube stated.

“We all know Iran and its proxies were actively seeking nuclear weapons and targeting American troops and allies. President Trump stepped up and stopped them. I’m glad we have a Commander in Chief who eliminates terrorists instead of pandering to them, like you do.”

As a lawyer, a veteran who wore the uniform, and a JAG who served in Operation Iraqi Freedom, I can say unequivocally: you’re wrong, @RepThomasMassie.

President Trump has full constitutional authority to take military action against Iran’s nuclear program without a formal… https://t.co/3hBHRf0a3w

— Congressman Greg Steube (@RepGregSteube) June 22, 2025

The comments come as the broader constitutional debate over executive war powers continues in Congress.

Supporters of the strike maintain that the action was necessary to neutralize a growing threat from Iran’s nuclear program, while opponents argue that the administration should have sought prior approval from Congress.

As the situation develops, the White House has maintained that all required congressional notifications were made and that the action fell within the president’s authority under both the Constitution and existing federal law.

Connect with Vetted Off-Duty Cops to Instantly Fulfill Your Security Needs