A post-Vietnam law puts a 60-day clock on the use of military force without congressional authorization.
The war in Iran for which the Trump administration sought no approval hits that 60-day mark May 1, according to the text of the law, the War Powers Resolution, but it’s not at all clear what will happen next.
First, 48 hours. The president must notify Congress within 48 hours of introducing the armed forces “into hostilities” and explain the scope, justification and likely duration of the effort.
In his notification to Congress about Iran, Trump, like other presidents, said he committed troops under a president’s inherent authority in the Constitution to “conduct United States foreign relations.”
Second, 60 days. Congress must authorize the use of force within 60 days of receiving that notification or, the law says, the military action must be terminated by the president.
Third, a possible extra 30 days. Trump can extend the 60-day clock for another 30 days if he argues that continued military action is needed to keep service members safe while withdrawing from the war. Trump has said he won’t be rushed into making a bad deal to end the war.
There’s some confusion in Congress over the exact date of the White House’s 60-day deadline, because lawyers in both parties argue there are multiple ways to interpret the federal statute.
Some believe the 60-day clock started from the date hostilities began, which would make the deadline April 29, while others cite the text of the law to argue it’s 60 calendar days from the date the White House officially notified Congress, which would put the deadline on May 1.
But many Republican lawmakers believe that the ceasefire period does not count toward the 60-day deadline. And even some Democrats said the ceasefire could complicate the timeline.
“You can’t punish ceasefires. We want them to sit down and talk to each other,” GOP Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick told CNN. Fitzpatrick said he is ready to force a vote on the War Powers Act if and when the ceasefire ends.
Lawmakers can revoke a president’s war powers at any time, but Democratic efforts to do so this time around have so far failed. Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who has criticized how Trump has gone about the war, has talked about pushing an authorization to put guardrails on how the war is prosecuted, but has not yet followed through.
Multiple presidents, including Trump, have argued that the law itself is unconstitutional. Richard Nixon vetoed the legislation when it first passed, arguing it constricted presidents’ ability to protect the country. Congress overrode his veto.
A resolution to limit Trump’s power in Venezuela was defeated in the Senate only because of Vice President JD Vance’s tie-breaking vote. But Vance said in January, before the Iran war, that the War Powers Resolution would not affect how Trump leads the country.
“The War Powers Act is fundamentally a fake and unconstitutional law,” Vance said. “It’s not going to change anything about how we conduct foreign policy over the next couple of weeks, the next couple of months. And that will continue to be how we approach things.”
Despite multiple administrations holding that view, the law has never been used to end a military action and courts have shied away from getting involved. There have been multiple lawsuits over the years brought by members of Congress challenging the use of force under the War Powers Resolution, but courts have not weighed in on the constitutionality of the law.
Previous presidents have found creative ways to continue their military adventures beyond 60 days despite the law’s clear wording, but none of those were of the scope and scale of the US and Israel’s war on Iran, as the National Constitution Center and the Congressional Research Service have documented.
And in contrast with previous administrations, the Trump White House has made no public effort to build support on Capitol Hill.
President Ronald Reagan avoided a constitutional showdown with Congress over the law by reaching a deal with lawmakers in 1983. Reagan had deployed Marines to Lebanon the year before as part of an international peacekeeping force. But he did not trigger the War Powers Resolution until Marines who were part of that force were killed, and Reagan authorized the Marines to use “aggressive self-defense.”
Also Read: Gunman scares Trump out of journalists’ dinner
After Reagan made that 48-hour notification, a fierce debate ensued between the administration and Congress, and lawmakers ultimately agreed to authorize the deployment of Marines in Beirut for 18 additional months. Days after Congress acted, a suicide bomber killed 241 Marines and other service members at the Marine barracks in Beirut. US forces withdrew from Lebanon in February 1984.
President Barack Obama overruled lawyers in his Justice Department to keep the US involved in a NATO bombing campaign in Libya in 2011 for longer than 60 days without congressional approval.
But he dispatched a top State Department lawyer, Harold Koh, to give testimony about the decision on Capitol Hill, and he articulated the reasons he felt the law did not apply to the conflict.
They argued that the military campaign did not qualify as exposing US forces to “hostilities” under the law. Koh also argued that the US forces were not really in danger since most of the US action was being undertaken by drones and that other NATO nations were, by then, doing most of the work.
Obama’s argument was borrowed by the Trump administration last year when Trump ordered the US military to sink alleged drug-trafficking boats for much longer than 60 days.
Trump could, at least in theory, now say that because there is a ceasefire, hostilities have ended and the clock should be reset. Or he could argue that the law simply does not apply. Presidents George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush both obtained authorizations for the use of military force for their respective wars against Iraq, but both argued they did not need them.
President Bill Clinton kept troops in Kosovo for longer than 60 days without obtaining permission from Congress as part of a UN peacekeeping mission in 1999, but he argued that Congress had effectively given permission by authorizing money to pay for the deployments. Congress also put limits on when that money could be spent.
The Trump administration has so far declined to say how much money the war on Iran will cost or to ask Congress for a supplemental appropriations bill that should be required to pay for it.
The second Trump administration so far has seen multiple examples of Republican leaders on Capitol Hill ceding power to the administration. That’s been true on Trump’s tariff policy; on his cuts to government programs previously authorized by Congress; on his efforts to shut down agencies created by Congress; and on his refusal to spend money appropriated by Congress.
Unlike those efforts, however, it’s not clear how or whether courts will step in if Trump ultimately challenges Congress over the War Powers Resolution.
GOP leaders have so far been mostly successful in keeping their party together and preventing defections on Iran war powers votes, which Democrats continue to force in the Senate and House. But multiple GOP sources have acknowledged to CNN that the 60-day mark could mark a shift in that unity.
Some Republican institutionalists have suggested that Congress has a responsibility to hold a vote over whether to authorize any war that goes beyond 60 days. And that could result in a symbolic rebuke.
Even Republicans who support the war could be reluctant to take a vote that would closely tie them to an issue that runs the risk of becoming a political liability in the midterm elections.
It’s also not clear how many GOP members would be willing to go on record rebuking their president in wartime. Even some Republicans who have been critical of the war have refused to vote against Trump anxious about what that kind of rebuke would look like to US adversaries as well as what kind of retribution it might provoke from the president.
CNN POLITICS
