How is the distribution of war powers among the branches of government regulated in the US? Can the "War Powers Resolution," adopted after the Vietnam War, maintain this balance in practice? In this article, the Khar Center evaluates whether the Iran war initiated by the Trump administration will be subjected to the limitations of US domestic legislation.
The "War Powers Resolution," enacted following the Vietnam War, imposes a 60-day limit on the use of military force without congressional authorization (Goldsmith 2013). The war with Iran, for which the Trump administration has sought no approval, reaches that 60-day threshold on May 1st—according to the text of the law, namely the "War Powers Resolution"—but what will happen after that is not entirely clear.
The issues currently being discussed by the international community are as follows:
- Does the President have the right to continue this war?
- Why is Congress unable to stop Trump?
- And a historical comparison—what did Obama, Bush, and Reagan do? (The New York Times, 2026)
The aforementioned resolution establishes a timeframe for undeclared wars:
First Stage: 48 Hours
Within 48 hours after introducing armed forces into "hostilities," the President must notify Congress and explain the scope, justification, and estimated duration of the operation. In his notification to Congress regarding Iran, Trump, like other presidents, stated that he deployed troops based on the authority granted to the president by the Constitution to "conduct US foreign policy."
Second Stage: 60 Days
Congress must authorize the use of military force within 60 days after receiving said notification; otherwise, according to the law, the President must cease military operations.
Third Stage: Possible Extension - 30 Days
Trump could extend the 60-day period for another 30 days by arguing that it is necessary to continue operations for the safe withdrawal of troops. He has already stated that he will not agree to a bad deal just for the sake of ending the war.
The Exact Deadline is Disputed
The issue is that normativism is scarce in Anglo-Saxon law; case law predominantly prevails. This creates numerous loopholes in the laws and leads to various interpretations; throughout history, US presidents have exploited this ambiguity. For this reason, there is some confusion in Congress regarding the exact date of the White House's 60-day period, as lawyers from both parties state that the federal law can be interpreted in different ways. Some believe that the 60-day countdown begins from the date the hostilities commenced (in which case the deadline is April 29), while others assert, based on the text of the law, that this period should be calculated from the date the White House officially notified Congress (in which case the deadline is May 1). Many Republican lawmakers consider that the ceasefire period should not be included in this 60-day timeframe. Even some Democrats admit that a ceasefire could complicate the time calculation. "We cannot penalize a ceasefire. We want the parties to sit down and talk," Republican Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick told CNN (CNN, 2026a). Fitzpatrick added that if the ceasefire ends, he is ready to demand a vote on the "War Powers Resolution." However, the reality is that this resolution has never been used to halt a military operation. Lawmakers can revoke the president's war powers at any time, but Democrats' attempts in this direction have been unsuccessful. Although Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski has criticized Trump's method of conducting the war, she currently does not support initiatives that would impose certain limitations on the war. Several presidents, including Trump, have claimed that the law itself is unconstitutional. When the law was first enacted, President Richard Nixon vetoed it, stating that it restricted the president's ability to protect the country. Congress, however, overrode the veto. A proposed resolution to limit Trump's powers regarding Venezuela was rejected in the Senate only by the tie-breaking vote of Vice President JD Vance. But Vance said in January—before the Iran war—that this resolution would not affect Trump's governance of the country: "The resolution is, frankly, bogus and unconstitutional. It is not going to change how we conduct foreign policy in the coming weeks and months" (CNN, 2026b). Even though many administrations have supported this position, the law has never yet been used to halt a military operation, and the courts have refrained from interfering in this matter. Although various lawsuits have been filed by members of Congress over the years, the courts have not ruled on the constitutionality of the law.
Previous presidents, despite the explicit text of the resolution, have found various ways to continue military operations beyond 60 days. However, none of these instances have been as large-scale as the war waged by the US and Israel against Iran. Moreover, the Trump administration, unlike its predecessors, has made no explicit initiative to gather support in Congress for the war it initiated. For instance, President Ronald Reagan chose the path of compromise; he avoided a Constitutional crisis by reaching an agreement with lawmakers in 1983. Reagan had sent Marines to Lebanon a year earlier as part of a peacekeeping mission, but only triggered the "War Powers Resolution" and authorized "aggressive self-defense" after the deaths of military personnel. Serious discussions ensued thereafter, and consequently, Congress agreed to extend the deployment of forces in Beirut for another 18 months. A few days later, 241 American service members were killed in a suicide bombing attack. US forces were withdrawn from Lebanon in February 1984 (U.S. Congress 1983). Obama, on the other hand, redefined the concept of "hostilities." In 2011, he continued NATO bombings in Libya for more than 60 days without congressional authorization. Obama sent State Department lawyer Harold Koh to testify before Congress and justify why the law did not apply to this conflict. According to their argument, this operation could not be evaluated as exposing US forces to "hostilities." Koh also stated that because the main activity was conducted with drones, US forces were not under serious threat, and the bulk of the operations were already being executed by NATO allies. Trump could also utilize various arguments. He could theoretically argue that because there is a ceasefire, the fighting has ended, and the 60-day countdown should restart. Or, he could argue that the law does not apply at all. Although both George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush obtained authorization from Congress for the Iraq wars, they also claimed there was no need for it. Bill Clinton utilized a financial argument. He kept troops in Kosovo for more than 60 days in 1999, justifying it by stating that by allocating funding for these operations, Congress had practically granted authorization (Lawfare, September 2, 2013). The Trump administration, however, has not yet requested an additional budget for the Iran war.
Republicans Hesitate to Oppose Trump
Republicans in Congress have thus far been cautious about opposing Trump; this has manifested itself in tariff policy, cuts to government programs, and other issues as well.
But the situation is different this time, because it is also unclear whether the courts will intervene. Although Republican leaders try to maintain unity within the party, some sources indicate that the 60-day threshold could undermine this unity. Some Republicans believe that Congress absolutely must hold a vote for a war lasting more than 60 days. Even Republicans who support the war may shy away from openly expressing a position on an issue that could pose a political risk in future elections. Other Republicans are concerned that opposing the president would send a signal to US adversaries, as well as worrying about the president's potential reaction.
In lieu of Conclusion
Both legal loopholes and hesitancy in political will have effectively turned the "War Powers Resolution" into a formal mechanism. Both past experiences and the initiatives of the Trump administration call into question the effectiveness of this document, which is essentially intended to restrict the executive branch's war powers. In particular, the disputes arising against the backdrop of the Iran war show that the constitutional balance envisioned in the making of war decisions in the US has been severely eroded in practice. If this trend continues, the decisive role of Congress in US policy could become significantly marginalized, and the president's powers in the realm of military decision-making could virtually take on an unlimited character.
References:
Lillian Goldman Law Library. 2008. "War Powers Resolution." The Avalon Project. Yale Law School. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/warpower.asp.
The New York Times. 2026. "A 60-Day Deadline Could Pressure Trump on Ending the Iran War," The New York Times, April 22, 2026. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/22/us/politics/war-powers-act-explanation.html.
CNN. 2026a. "The law sets a 60-day limit on unauthorized wars. Will Trump respect it?" CNN, April 25, 2026. https://edition.cnn.com/2026/04/25/politics/war-powers-act-trump-iran-war-congress-analysis.
CNN. 2026b. "Vice President Vance Answers Questions Over Renee Nicole's Death and U.S. Operations in Venezuela; Senate Advances Measure to Curb Trump's Venezuela War Powers; Pro-Maduro Protesters Demand Release of Maduro. Immigration Crackdown Stokes Fear Among Minnesota Latinos; Senate Advances to Measure Curb Trump's Venezuela War Powers; At least 45 killed, Including Eight Children in Iran." Isa Soares Tonight. Hosted by Max Foster. Aired January 8, 2026. Transcript. https://transcripts.cnn.com/show/ist/date/2026-01-08/segment/01.
U.S. Congress. 1983. Congressional Record. 98th Cong., 1st sess., October 6. Vol. 129, pt. 20. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-CRECB-1983-pt20/pdf/GPO-CRECB-1983-pt20-2-1.pdf.
Goldsmith, Jack. 2013. "The Potential Relevance of OLC's Kosovo-War Powers Resolution Opinion to the Syria Debate." Lawfare, September 2, 2013. https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/potential-relevance-olcs-kosovo-war-powers-resolution-opinion-syria-debate.
