US Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Tuesday, 6 May declared the War Powers Act "100 per cent unconstitutional" while defending President Donald Trump's authority to conduct military operations against Iran without congressional approval. The remarks came during a wide-ranging White House briefing in which Rubio outlined the administration's military posture in the Strait of Hormuz and its broader Middle East strategy.

Rubio on the War Powers Act

"The War Powers Act is unconstitutional, 100 per cent," Rubio said. "That has been the position of every single presidential administration since the day that law passed." The War Powers Act, passed by Congress in 1973 following the Vietnam War, was designed to limit a president's ability to commit US forces to armed conflict without legislative authorisation. Successive administrations from both parties have historically questioned parts of the law while continuing to comply with some of its reporting requirements.

Rubio stressed that the White House would continue consulting Congress but maintained that the president retained constitutional authority to act militarily when necessary. "We comply with elements of it for purposes of maintaining good relations with Congress," he said. "We want them to be involved, and we want them to be informed."

Operation Epic Fury and Project Freedom

Rubio confirmed that Operation Epic Fury, the earlier US military campaign linked to Iran and the Strait of Hormuz, had concluded after achieving its stated objectives. "The operation is over," Rubio said. "We achieved the objectives of that operation." The administration has since shifted focus to Project Freedom, an ongoing naval effort aimed at protecting commercial shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. "We cannot live in a world where a rogue state like this Iranian regime is allowed to claim control over an international shipping lane," Rubio said.

Diplomacy With Iran Still Preferred, But Complicated

Despite the escalating military pressure, Rubio said President Trump still preferred a diplomatic resolution with Tehran. "What the president would prefer is a deal," Rubio said. "He would prefer to sit down, work out a memorandum of understanding for future negotiations." However, Rubio described Iran's leadership as divided and difficult to engage, citing its complex internal power structure. "An offer will be made, and then it takes five or six days to get a response," he said. "They have to find the supreme leader, wherever he hides."

Hezbollah, Lebanon, and Iran's Regional Influence

Rubio also addressed the administration's broader Middle East strategy, framing Hezbollah as the central obstacle to lasting peace between Israel and Lebanon. "The problem with Israel and Lebanon is not Israel or Lebanon, it's Hezbollah," he said. "Hezbollah operates from inside of Lebanese territory." He accused Iran of backing militant groups across the region. "If you go through that Middle East and you identify every problem, Hamas, Hezbollah, to some extent, the Houthis, behind every one of these groups is Tehran," Rubio said. Washington, he added, wants a stronger Lebanese government capable of challenging Hezbollah's military influence. "There shouldn't be a Hezbollah and a government," he said. "There should be a government."

Vatican Trip, Cuba Aid, and Religious Freedom

The briefing also covered Rubio's upcoming visit to the Vatican and Italy. He rejected suggestions that the trip was linked to any tensions between Trump and Pope Leo, saying discussions would focus on humanitarian aid, religious freedom, and the persecution of Christians. "We share with the Catholic Church a concern about the destruction of religious liberty," Rubio said. On Cuba, he said Washington had attempted to channel humanitarian aid through the church but faced resistance from Havana. "We were willing to give more humanitarian aid to Cuba," he said. "The Cuban regime has to allow us to do it." The administration's foreign policy, Rubio repeatedly emphasised, is framed as a defence of international order and US strategic interests — a posture that will face continued scrutiny as nuclear negotiations with Iran remain unresolved.