The US Congress is approaching a key legal deadline over President Donald Trump’s war with Iran with no clear sign that lawmakers intend to vote on whether to authorise the conflict formally, even as some Republicans say Congress should have a say if military operations continue.
The immediate trigger is the 60-day limit set out in the 1973 War Powers Resolution. Under that law, a president who introduces US forces into hostilities without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorisation is generally required to terminate those operations within 60 days, with a possible 30-day extension only to ensure the safe withdrawal of forces.
Multiple US outlets and analysts have treated 1 May as the operative deadline in the Iran conflict, based on the administration’s formal notification to Congress after the war began on 28 February.
That has sharpened a central question in Washington: whether Congress, having repeatedly declined to block the war, is willing to take the further step of explicitly approving it.
So far, there is little evidence of that. The Senate has rejected five separate war-powers measures since early March, including proposals led by Democratic senators Tim Kaine, Cory Booker, Chris Murphy, Tammy Duckworth and Tammy Baldwin. The most recent failed on 22 April by 46 votes to 51. Rand Paul was the only Republican to support that measure, while John Fetterman was the lone Democrat to oppose it.
The House also narrowly turned back a war-powers resolution on 16 April. H.Con.Res. 40 failed by 213 votes to 214, with one member voting present.
Those votes helped preserve Trump’s room for manoeuvre, but they did not amount to an authorisation for war.
As of Monday, Senate Republican leader John Thune and Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman James Risch had not publicly indicated that they would bring a new authorisation for the use of military force, or AUMF, to the floor. That has left Congress in the politically awkward position of refusing to stop the conflict while also declining to assume formal responsibility for it.
Some Republicans, however, have begun to signal discomfort with that approach.
Senator Susan Collins has said that if the conflict exceeds the 60 days specified in the War Powers Act, Congress should have to authorise those actions. Senator Thom Tillis has said the administration would be wise to assemble what he called a “well-founded” military authorisation and a funding strategy. Senator Lisa Murkowski has also been reported to be circulating or drafting possible Iran AUMF language, with Senator John Curtis among those said to have reviewed a draft.
The White House has defended the war as a lawful exercise of presidential commander-in-chief authority and has portrayed the campaign, branded Operation Epic Fury, as largely successful. In a statement on 8 April, the administration said Iran had agreed to a ceasefire and that the operation had achieved its objectives in 38 days. The White House said the campaign involved more than 10,200 air sorties and strikes on more than 13,000 targets, alongside the interception of hundreds of ballistic missiles and more than 1,000 attack drones.
That account, however, has not settled the legal debate.
Although major combat operations appear to have eased since the ceasefire announcement, Al Jazeera reported that the US military has continued enforcing a blockade in the Strait of Hormuz and that Trump has continued to warn of renewed attacks as ceasefire talks have stalled. If US forces are still deemed to be engaged in “hostilities”, legal experts say the War Powers clock remains highly relevant.
According to the Congressional Research Service, the War Powers Resolution requires the president to consult Congress “in every possible instance” before introducing US forces into hostilities and to notify lawmakers within 48 hours once such action begins. It also states that the president must end the use of force after 60 calendar days unless Congress has declared war, enacted a specific authorisation, or extended the period by law.
In practice, however, enforcement has long been uncertain. Courts have historically been reluctant to intervene in war-powers disputes, often treating them as matters for the political branches. Presidents of both parties have also tested or bypassed the statute’s limits, including during the Kosovo air war under Bill Clinton and US military action in Libya under Barack Obama.
That history has led some analysts to argue that the real issue is not what the law says, but whether Congress is prepared to enforce it.
David Janovsky of the Project on Government Oversight told Al Jazeera that the question for lawmakers is whether they are willing to “own this” conflict or continue to avoid direct responsibility for it.
The political risks are substantial. Public polling has shown limited support for the war and broad unease about its costs and objectives. An AP-NORC poll in mid-April found that 32 per cent of Americans approved of Trump’s handling of Iran. Separate Ipsos polling found that 66 per cent wanted US involvement ended quickly even if not all objectives were achieved, while just 24 per cent said the war had been worth it.
Lawmakers have also raised concerns over casualties, civilian harm and the financial burden of the campaign. More than 40 senators wrote to the Pentagon in March seeking answers after reports of significant civilian deaths and injuries in Iran. The administration has not publicly provided a clear overall cost estimate for the war.
For now, Congress appears divided between members who say the president’s actions should be curtailed, Republicans who are reluctant to challenge Trump directly, and a smaller group of senators who appear open to an authorisation vote if the operation continues.
If no authorisation is brought forward by 1 May, the confrontation may not produce an immediate constitutional showdown. The administration could argue that the ceasefire has changed the legal position or that current operations do not amount to ongoing hostilities. Congress, for its part, could again choose inaction over a difficult vote.
But absent a new law, the basic political fact remains: after 60 days of war with Iran, Congress has voted against stopping the conflict, yet it still has not voted to approve it.