Presidents vs. Congress: Trump is the Latest to Test War Powers Act/ Newslooks/ WASHINGTON/ J. Mansour/ Morning Edition/ President Trump has reignited debate over the War Powers Act by ordering strikes on Iran without congressional approval. While the law requires notifying Congress within 48 hours and limits hostilities to 60–90 days, past presidents often exploited its vague language. Congress is now preparing resolutions to curb Trump’s authority and reassert its oversight role.
Presidents vs. Congress: Trump Tests War Powers Act Again: Quick Looks
- Trump launched limited strikes on Iranian nuclear sites without formal congressional approval
- Under the 1973 War Powers Resolution, presidents must notify Congress within 48 hours and seek approval within 60–90 days
- Historically, presidents have circumvented the law through vague interpretations, citing emergencies or self-defense
- Congress plans votes this week on bipartisan resolutions tying further military action in Iran to legislative consent
- Legal experts note presidents retain constitutional authority to act in imminent threats, but broader action requires congressional backing
Presidents vs. Congress: Trump is the Latest to Test War Powers Act
Deep Look
Washington, D.C. — June 24, 2025
President Trump’s surprise strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities have reignited a long-standing tug-of-war over the War Powers Act, legislation crafted in 1973 to clarify war decision-making between the executive and legislative branches.
What the War Powers Act Requires
Enacted over President Nixon’s veto, the resolution mandates that when the president commits U.S. forces to “hostilities,” they must notify Congress within 48 hours and seek approval within 60 to 90 days, unless Congress already has declared war or granted authorization.
But critics argue the Act offers presidents too many escape hatches. Its calls for consultation are vague, and it provides no mechanism to enforce its requirements. Scott Anderson of Brookings notes that “habitual practice” among presidents has been minimal compliance .
Presidents vs the Law
Trump notified Congress of the Iran strikes Monday, deeming them “limited in scope and purpose.” However, skeptics argue that notification alone is insufficient without binding congressional approval.
This echoes past presidencies:
- Jimmy Carter justified the 1980 Iran rescue attempt as non-war action.
- George W. Bush followed 9/11 with congressional authorization for Iraq .
- Barack Obama argued that Libya airstrikes didn’t constitute “hostilities” under the Act.
Congress Responds
This week, the Senate plans to vote on a resolution, led by Sen. Tim Kaine, to restrict further Iran-related military operations without congressional approval. A similar resolution in the House, backed by Reps. Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie, could also force a vote if peace with Iran unravels.
Majority Republicans are split—some support Trump’s executive authority, while others favor reasserting congressional oversight, pointing to constitutional checks and balances.
Constitutional Debate
Legal scholars stress that the Constitution grants Congress the exclusive power to declare war (Article I), while the president retains the right to deploy limited force in emergencies (Article II). The prevailing view: broader military action needs congressional authorization.
What’s Next
If Congress does not authorize the strikes within the 60- to 90-day window, the War Powers Resolution directs the president to end hostilities. As history shows, many presidents resist such limitations, leaving enforcement to political pressure rather than legal mechanisms .
With the Senate vote expected later this week—and classified briefings planned—Congress is once again testing the strength of its constitutional war powers against executive independence.
You must Register or Login to post a comment.