There are moments in U.S. foreign policy when the law moves from the margins to the center of debate. The expiration of Donald Trump’s 60-day deadline for continuing military hostilities with Iran is one of those moments. It can no longer be explained away with threats, campaign slogans, or claims of “deterrence.” The central question now is not whether a U.S. president can respond to an external crisis. It is whether he can turn a military confrontation into a continuing policy of the United States without congressional authorization.
The War Powers Resolution, passed in 1973, is specifically meant for such times. According to this resolution, whenever U.S. troops are deployed in “hostilities,” or when there is clear evidence of imminent hostilities, the president needs to inform Congress. In the absence of any declaration of war or any authorization under the statute, the president needs to remove the troops from “hostilities” within 60 days. This time limit includes the provision for withdrawing troops safely from “hostilities.”
In the case of Iran, this deadline is not merely technical. The letter Trump sent to Congress started the clock on Feb. 28, which means that the 60 days ended on May 1. The administration now argues that a ceasefire has “paused” or effectively ended that clock. But that interpretation has no clear basis in the text of the law or in the purpose of the War Powers Resolution. The law was enacted to prevent exactly this outcome: an emergency presidential action evolving into a prolonged war without a clear vote by the people’s elected representatives.
The constitutional issue goes far beyond Iran. The fundamental tenet of the War Powers Resolution suggests that the president as commander-in-chief does not have the right to start an unlimited war. He can send the country’s armed forces into action only with a declaration of war, authorization by Congress, or as a result of a national emergency, including an attack on the country or its military forces. This is the line between a limited executive action and a war that must be accountable to the public and to Congress.
It is also where the contradiction in Trump’s position becomes clear. According to the White House, the conflict has been concluded thanks to the cease-fire agreement. However, American military intervention, naval activity near the Strait of Hormuz, and aerial strikes cannot be overlooked when discussing the current situation. Trump declared hostilities “terminated” even as Democrats pointed to ongoing U.S. military deployments and naval pressure as evidence that the conflict had not truly ended. If the war is over, why does the machinery of military pressure continue? And if that pressure continues, why should Congress not vote on it?
The response is nothing short of an attempt to dodge legal constraints. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth believes that the 60-day period has been suspended because of the ceasefire. However, legal critics and Democrats strongly oppose this position. The reason is simple: the law does not give administrations an excuse to dodge their obligations through renaming military actions, declaring ceasefires, and carrying out selective strikes.
Congress cannot remain a mere observer. Some Republicans such as Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) believe that the 60-day period is not optional but mandatory. She believes that the new campaign against Iran should include clearly defined missions, objectives, and strategies. However, Republicans have chosen neither to authorize nor restrict military activities against Iran. The Senate voted 50-47to reject a Democratic motion that sought to end unauthorized attacks on Iran.
That silence is more dangerous than an ordinary partisan dispute. If Congress allows a president to continue military pressure after the legal deadline through vague legal interpretations and broad security claims, the War Powers Resolution becomes little more than a ceremonial text. Future presidents could then invoke labels such as “ceasefire,” “deterrence,” “freedom of navigation,” or “limited operation” to keep endless wars beyond public scrutiny.
There is also a strategic failure at the heart of Trump’s approach. His policy appears to rest on the assumption that military pressure can turn Iranian society against its own political system. But the public reaction inside Iran has been more complicated. In the face of foreign threat, many Iranians have taken an openly anti-American and anti-Israeli position and have rallied in support of the Islamic Republic. It is an uncomfortable truth for Washington that using military force against Iran, no matter how well-intentioned its justification may be to help the Iranian people, could have the opposite effect by strengthening the rhetoric of resistance and bolstering the legitimacy of the regime against foreign aggression.
Trump cannot continue war or military pressure against Iran simply through personal will, political theater, or displays of force. Even in the United States, where the president refers to himself as commander-in-chief, he is no king. The underlying premise of both the Constitution and the War Powers Act is straightforward yet essential: any decisions regarding war should be passed through elected bodies.
Congress is now left with the following decision. It can accept its legal responsibility and vote on whether to continue, limit, or end operations against Iran. Or it can defer to the executive branch. The second option may be easier in the short term for partisan reasons. In the long term, however, it would weaken the very legal order the United States claims to defend.
If the Trump administration truly believes that continued military pressure on Iran is necessary, lawful, and in the interest of the American people, it should take that case to Congress and seek authorization. If it cannot obtain that authorization, continuing on this path will be not only legally suspect but politically illegitimate. After 60 days, the issue is not only Iran. The issue is whether the United States still believes that the decision to wage war must be governed by law—or whether it is willing to leave that decision to the instincts of a single president.
COMMENTS