Airstrikes on Nigeria and Presidential Power

In this episode of The Mac and Mike Show, the hosts discuss U.S. airstrikes ordered by President Trump against Islamic State–linked terrorists in Nigeria on Christmas Day, reportedly conducted with Nigerian government cooperation. The conversation centers not on whether the terrorists are morally reprehensible, but on whether the U.S. president has the legal and constitutional authority to carry out such strikes without explicit congressional approval.

Mac raises concern that while stopping the genocide of Christians (and moderate Muslims) in Nigeria may be morally righteous, it is unclear how the action serves a direct U.S. national security interest. He questions whether the Constitution, Article II powers, or the post-9/11 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) truly justify unilateral military action in a sovereign nation that has not attacked the United States.

Mike agrees the president likely has legal authority under current interpretations of Article II and the AUMF, a view echoed by some AI analyses they reference, but emphasizes that this authority is too broad and overdue for reform. Both argue Congress should reassert its constitutional role in authorizing military force, warning that unchecked presidential power sets dangerous precedents future presidents could misuse.

The discussion broadens to parallels with potential strikes against drug cartels in Mexico, sanctions and actions in Venezuela, historical examples like Pearl Harbor, and hypothetical scenarios involving China, Israel, or Greenland. Throughout, both hosts stress the “slippery slope” of justifying military force based on moral causes rather than clear American self-defense.

They conclude that while President Trump may legally possess the authority under current law, the deeper issue is whether he should. Both argue that war and military force should be a last resort, authorized by Congress, carefully justified, and grounded in both constitutional process and moral legitimacy, lest the U.S. undermine its principles and global standing.

This is a clean, readable version of the transcript from the Mac and Mike Show. I have removed the timestamps, corrected grammatical errors, and structured the dialogue to reflect a natural conversation while maintaining the original tone and context.

---

The Mac and Mike Show: Presidential Authority and Global Strikes

Mac: Hey folks, welcome back to the Mac and Mike Show. Today is Christmas Day, and the President of the United States has ordered strikes on Islamic State terrorists in the nation-state of Nigeria. After the attacks occurred, the Nigerian government issued a statement claiming the strikes were a joint operation conducted in cooperation with them. I hope that’s true; I hope we didn’t do this without the agreement and cooperation of the Nigerian government.

Mike and I are going to talk today about the idea of attacking an army or a terrorist group in another nation when the Congress of the United States has not declared war. The justification for attacking these terrorists in Nigeria was that the Nigerian government wasn’t doing enough to protect Christians. This was framed as an act to save people from genocide—we are talking about hundreds, thousands, maybe tens of thousands of Christians being killed. For those who don’t know, Nigeria has about 220 million people and is split roughly 50/50 between Christians and Muslims.

The question I want to pose is: what are the powers of the President? The Constitution clearly gives him the authority to use the military to defend our nation and protect American citizens. There is no doubt in my mind about that. However, I’m not sure I see the American interest or the American citizens at risk that would justify this specific attack in Nigeria.

In the past, attacks on terrorists were justified by the AUMF (Authorization for Use of Military Force) passed after 9/11. While not a formal declaration of war, it authorized the pursuit of terrorists. There is also legislation that allows the President to identify groups as terrorist organizations by executive order, giving him the authority to take them out. He’s doing something similar near Venezuela regarding drug boats. Once a group or state is declared “narco-terrorist,” he uses that authority.

So Mike, I know you’ll have an erudite answer for this: are these attacks in Nigeria justified under American law or the Constitution?

Mike: Well, based on what I know, Article 2 of the Constitution and the AUMF are often used to authorize this because they are broadly interpreted. Many people have been pushing for a narrower interpretation. I believe it’s time for Congress to remove or narrow that authorization. We don’t want any president—not just Trump, but anyone—going around “willy-nilly” taking on actions that the American people don’t support.

The argument is that as Commander-in-Chief, the President has more intelligence at his disposal than the average American or Congressman. While intelligence committees exist, if we can’t even get a narrow immigration law passed, I doubt we’ll see the AUMF narrowed anytime soon. Mac, you’re right; a lot of people are asking these questions. Like a Supreme Court ruling, it often comes down to an “opinion.” Even among Trump supporters, many don’t like this type of action.

Mac: I think this President has taken a very liberal view of his military powers. He has placed a blockade around Venezuela, stopping oil shipments, and the U.S. military has even commandeered tankers. Because there are legal sanctions in place, I can find a way to accept the authorization for those actions. However, I struggle to find the authorization for striking terrorists on foreign soil in a sovereign nation-state.

It concerns me because it establishes a precedent. If the President can order attacks on a terrorist group in Nigeria, is it that much of a stretch to see him order a strike on drug cartels in Mexico? Now, you could argue that attacking cartels protects Americans from the drugs killing people here, but even then, should we take action without the Mexican government or a say from Congress?

We seem to be picking and choosing which genocides to stop. We might agree with stopping the slaughter of Christians, but what if a future president from a different party uses that same logic to attack something we don’t support?

Mike: You raise a good point. If you flip the script, you could imagine a future where a different administration—perhaps one with a different view on Israel—decides to attack Israel on behalf of Palestinians using that same unilateral logic. It’s a stretch, but if the precedent is there, it’s possible.

Before we started recording, I mentioned I’d prefer to see action against drug cartels. An embargo is one thing—it’s not “kinetic” in the sense of a shooting war—but once you start boarding ships or launching strikes, you put troops at risk. As veterans, that’s our number one concern: we don’t want our people giving their lives for something that doesn’t directly affect American interests.

Mac: When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor in 1941, Franklin D. Roosevelt didn’t immediately order retribution. He went to Congress and asked for a formal declaration of war, as the Constitution calls for. I am a supporter of this President’s policies generally, and I understand the desire to protect defenseless people in Nigeria, but I want to be educated on where that authority comes from. If it’s in the AUMF, it doesn’t seem right to me. It is righteous to protect people, but it should be done the right way—through Congress.

Mike: I actually just cross-referenced this with a few AI tools. Grok and ChatGPT both say that under Article 2 and the AUMF, the President has broad authority to conduct operations against terrorist threats like ISIS or Al-Qaeda. Gemini was a bit more cautious, noting it’s a matter of intense legal and political debate and mentioning the War Powers Act, which requires the President to notify Congress.

Mac: That brings me to the core issue: how much power in the hands of a single individual is too much? If we weren’t willing to attack Japan without a declaration of war, how can we attack groups in Nigeria that aren’t directly threatening our soil?

If we use military force because of a genocide in Africa, what’s next? For example, we get 80-90% of our rare earth minerals from China. If China decided to cut us off and ruin our economy, would that justify a presidential order to attack them? Or Greenland—we want the minerals and resources there. Does our need for those materials give a president the authority to just go take it?

Mike: Straight answer: no, we don’t have that authority as long as we respect sovereign countries and the UN. But I see the connection you’re making. It’s about what level of justification permits the use of force.

Mac: Exactly. I want America to be “the guy in the white hat,” the good guy. Usually, the world sees us that way because we only ask for enough ground to bury our dead. But when we launch strikes like this, we run the risk of changing the world’s opinion of us. I can’t wrap my head around this strike, even if the motivation was good. I’m searching for a justification so I can say, “President Trump did this and it’s righteous,” but I don’t have that answer.

Mike: When you say “righteous,” I think of the Holocaust. People criticized America for not getting involved sooner. There is a human rights aspect to this. But these groups are everywhere. We’d have to go to a dozen different countries to stomp it out.

Mac: We’ve allowed power to slip away from the representatives of the people and into the executive branch through executive orders and unchallenged military actions. I’m not comfortable with it. Might does not make right; God is the arbiter of right and wrong. I want America to be on the righteous side, and I believe that means doing things the right way—through debate and a clear vote by the people’s representatives.

Mike: I agree. Whether he has the authority and whether he should have the authority are two different things. It’s a mess, but that’s a representative republic for you.

Mac: Well, I think we’ve beaten this up enough. I still don’t know how I managed to bring Greenland and Nigeria into the same conversation, but somehow I did!

Mike: It’s all about authority, Mac. That’s the common thread.

---