The Toothless War Powers Resolution
What happens at the 60 day mark of the Iran War? Nothing.
WSJ (“Trump Poised to Defy Congress on War Authorization“):
The Trump administration is on course to blow past an initial deadline for congressional approval for the Iran war on the grounds that the ongoing cease-fire stopped the clock on a 60-day deadline—an assertion met with outrage from Democrats and skepticism from Republicans on Capitol Hill.
Under a 1973 law called the War Powers Resolution, the president is required to notify Congress within 48 hours of military action and withdraw U.S. troops 60 days later, unless lawmakers declare war or authorize the use of force. The expectation on Capitol Hill was that the 60-day deadline expires on Friday.
In testimony Thursday before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said the current cease-fire with Iran, which began April 8, stopped the countdown.
While Trump halted airstrikes against Iran, the U.S. military continues to enforce a military blockade that prohibits ships from reaching or leaving Iranian ports. A blockade is considered an act of war under international law.
“We are in a cease-fire right now, which our understanding means the 60-day clock pauses or stops in a cease-fire,” Hegseth said. “That’s—it’s our understanding.”
This doesn’t constitute “defying Congress” because Congress hasn’t acted. Indeed, a Senate measure to halt the conflict failed for the sixth time yesterday, by a 47-50 vote. The only new vote in support of the measure came from Maine Republican Susan Collins, who’s in an uphill re-election fight.
Beyond that, the “the war is over even though it’s still underway” argument is not unprecedented. President Obama invoked it after the Libya deadline passed—even though US forces were actively involved in kinetic action—on the basis that we had no “boots on the ground.” Not only do we not have boots on the ground in Iran, but we’re not actively engaged in hostile action.
To be sure, this war rather clearly violates the Constitution, under which only Congress can authorize sending American forces to war, and the 1973 War Powers Resolution, which declares,
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
Alas, both of these have been violated repeatedly. Further, as I noted almost exactly 15 years ago, when the Obama administration was doing the exact same thing in Libya that the Trump administration is doing in Iran now, that resolution “isn’t a criminal statute. The remedy remains what it was before the War Powers Act was passed: Impeachment.”
As a theoretical matter, Congress could also cut off funds to a war that has thus far cost somewhere between $25 and $50 billion. But that’s even less likely than impeachment. It would be seen as a failure to “support the troops.”
I’ve written on this issue many, many times over the years. The first instance appears to be roughly six weeks into OTB’s existence, a March 2003 post titled “Suing to Stop War.”
A group of House Democrats and a handful of citizens are suing in the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals to stop the war. They are arguing that the president shouldn’t be able to order troops to war without a congressional declaration of war. In the past, courts have been reluctant to intervene in such “political questions.”
While I find the argument interesting, it has no chance of winning. Presidents have been sending the military into harm’s way at least since Jefferson ordered strikes against the Barbary Pirates in Tripoli. It has been done so many times as to have simply become the way we do things, much like the federal judiciary acquired the unenumerated power of judicial review. Indeed, the Congress formalized this fact with the 1973 War Powers Act, passed over Nixon’s veto, which allows presidents to use force on their own, but requires that they notify Congress as soon as possible and get approval after 60/90 days. Furthermore, it is arguable that the October 2002 joint resolution of Congress authorizing the president to use force in Iraq amounts to a declaration of war.
Philosophically, I don’t think presidents should have the right to act without congressional approval in matters such as this case. In situations where there is an imminent crisis, the president as Commander-in-Chief obviously needs to be able to act quickly and decisively. But when we spend months playing footsie with the UN, in a Quixotic quest for legitimacy, presidents have time to gain the approval of Congress. I didn’t like it when Clinton sent troops into Kosovo and Bosnia without authorization, and don’t like it now with Bush. But, again, that’s how the war power has evolved and I can’t see the courts overriding that now.
It turned out that Bush got an Authorization to Use Military Force for the Iraq War, rendering the issue moot. But he could have sent forces into harm’s way on his own authority had he so chosen.
Subsequent posts worth highlighting:
- “War Powers in the Age of Terror,” October 31, 2005
- “Congress and Warmaking,” January 25, 2007
- “War Declarations,” October 7, 2007
- “War Powers Consultation Act,” July 8, 2008
- “War Powers Act and Illegal Wars,” May 12, 2011
- “Congress vs. Obama on Libya,” June 13, 2011
- “America Carrying Load in Libya While Pretending Otherwise,” July 2, 2011
- “Congress is Powerless to Stop Presidential Strike on North Korea,” February 9, 2018
- “Trump Says War Powers Act Doesn’t Apply to Cartel Strikes,” November 2, 2025
- “War Powers Catch-22,” March 5, 2026
And that doesn’t include a boatload of posts on the matter by the late Doug Mataconis and a handful by my co-blogger Steven Taylor. They can be found organized under the War Powers tag.
