A new essay in Reason pushes back against Steven Calabresi's defense of President Trump's handling of the Iran war. The piece acknowledges that Calabresi's argument is bold, but it argues that boldness alone does not make it legally sound. The author concludes that Calabresi gets the matter only half right.
The critique centers on the gap between defending presidential action and correctly analyzing the law. While the Reason writer does not dispute every point Calabresi makes, they argue that his overall position fails to hold up. The headline's phrasing—"Bold, perhaps; but not Brave and not Right"—captures the central complaint: a confident defense is not the same as a correct one.
The piece ultimately warns against conflating rhetorical force with constitutional accuracy. It suggests that even when a legal argument is daring, it still must be measured against established principles. In this case, the author believes Calabresi's defense comes up short on the merits.