What Is The War Powers Resolution of 1973?
The War Powers Resolution of 1973 is a law enacted by Congress that limits the U.S. president’s ability to wage or escalate military operations overseas. Passed on November 7, 1973 amid the Vietnam War, the War Powers Resolution reasserts Congress’ constitutional power “to declare war” and “to raise and support Armies.” A key provision of the War Powers Resolution requires the president to submit a report to Congress within 48 hours of military deployment in the absence of an official declaration of war by Congress detailing:
- The circumstances requiring U.S. forces;
- The constitutional or legislative justification for the president’s actions;
- The estimated duration of U.S. involvement in the hostilities.
If Congress does not formally declare war or enact special authorization for continuation of the U.S’ involvement in a conflict within 60 days of the report’s submission, the president must withdraw U.S. troops from the hostilities. If Congress does declare war, the president is instructed under the War Powers Resolution to report to Congress periodically on the status of the hostilities no less than once every 6 months.
Since becoming law in response to President Richard Nixon’s secret bombing campaign aimed at North Vietnamese supply routes in Cambodia, the War Powers Resolution has been applied several times with varying levels of compliance from sitting presidents. Following the Mayagüez Incident (1975), President Gerald Ford abided by the Resolution with his submitting a report to Congress, while President George H.W Bush launched Operation Desert Storm in 1991 only after Congress passed the Iraq Resolution. Both the Clinton administration and the Obama administration violated the Resolution, letting U.S involvement in The Kosovo Conflict (1999) and The Libya Intervention (2011) continue past 60 days without congressional approval. Most recently, members of Congress have sought to invoke the War Powers Resolution following President Donald J. Trump’s decision to approve U.S. air strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities in June of last year and U.S. air strikes on Venezuela in early January that preceded the arrest of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro and his wife. Both measures to pass resolutions curtailing President Trump’s power failed to receive majority support in the House and the Senate.
What’s Happening in Iran?
On February 28th, the U.S. and Israel launched air attacks on Iran in what President Trump deemed as an effort to “defend the American people by eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime” in a Truth Social post. With the strikes killing Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran pledged a severe response, going on to fire drones and missiles at Gulf countries with American military bases like Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. The ongoing conflict, which the White House now calls Operation Epic Fury, has seen the deaths of 7 American service members and more than 1,000 people in Iran and the cancellations of more than 20,000 flights that were supposed to fly to or from the Middle East.
Why Did Lawmakers Want to Force a Vote?
After the U.S.-Iran conflict began, members of Congress vowed to force a vote on war powers resolutions that would prevent President Trump from taking further action in Iran without congressional approval. And although members of Congress were briefed by top national security advisors three days after the initial attack, some lawmakers remained concerned about the lack of an exit strategy and pushed for a vote. In the Senate, the war powers measure failed in a 47-53 vote, and in the House, by a 212-219 vote.
Who Supported the Vote?
Prior to failing in both the House and the Senate, lawmakers from both political parties had spoken out in favor of passing a war powers resolution, with some lawmakers calling the U.S.-led attacks on Iran “illegal and unconstitutional.” Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) asserted that it was the president’s obligation under the Constitution to ask Congress for permission to use military force. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) affirmed that the Iran situation lacked the “exigent circumstances” that would have allowed the president to act without congressional approval. Across the aisle, House Representative Thomas Massie (R-KY) tweeted that the U.S.-Iran War was not in-line with Trump’s “America First” agenda as he joined Representative Ro Khanna (D-CA) in forcing a vote in the House.
Who Opposed the Vote?
Prominent lawmakers like House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) opposed a vote on a war powers resolution, stating that President Trump was within his Article II, Section II constitutional powers as commander-in-chief to direct the military to carry out the attack. Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC) also opposed the vote and argued that President Trump’s actions were meant to “settle the account with the Iranian regime.” In addition, Senator John Curtis (R-Utah) believed a war powers resolution would stop the president from being able to “cut off a threat before it becomes imminent.” One of the only Democratic voices to oppose the vote was Senator John Fetterman (D-PA), who supported the president’s actions as a matter of global security.
What Are the Future Implications?
With both the House and the Senate failing to pass a war powers resolution that would have reinstated Congress’s power to declare war, the U.S.-Iran War is expected to continue, with President Trump projecting that the conflict could last four-to-five weeks.
Already, the impacts of the war have been felt worldwide, as QatarEnergy has halted production of liquefied natural gas (LNG) after being targeted by Iranian missiles which has caused European natural gas prices to surge by 40%. In the United States, gas prices jumped by 11 cents overnight, the largest one-day increase since 2022.
If Congress decides to revisit the War Powers Resolution amid the U.S.-Iran War and rein in President Trump’s military power, it is likely that President Trump would veto a bipartisan resolution, thus forcing Congress to accrue the two-thirds votes in the House and the Senate necessary to override it. The War Powers Resolution could also be challenged in court. While the Supreme Court has historically declined to rule on the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution, its enforceability remains on uncertain legal ground.
Unpacking War Powers in the U.S.-Iran Conflict: Who Decides When America Goes to War? was first published on The Alliance for Citizen Engagement and was republished with permission.
Stephanie Peterson is a senior at Purdue University Northwest.
image of U.S. President Donald Trump is displayed on a digital billboard in Times Square in New York on April 8, 2026.
Trump is stuck between two realities. Neither serves the American people
Normally, I worry that events may overtake a column. But not so with the Iran war.
I don’t worry about running afoul of a headline or Truth Social post from the president because what is said about the situation is no longer very relevant to the reality.
On April 8, Nick Catoggio, my Dispatch colleague, dubbed an earlier stoppage with Iran “Schrödinger’s ceasefire.” This was a reference to the famous thought experiment by the physicist Erwin Schrödinger, who was trying to explain the weirdness of “superpositionality” in quantum physics. A cat in a box is both dead and alive at the same time until you open the box. Schrödinger meant to illustrate the absurdity of the idea that particles aren’t any one thing, but a “cloud of probabilities.”
The Trump administration is stuck in a word cloud of probabilities of his own making. The war is over. The war is on. The war isn’t a war. We have a deal, but we don’t have a deal, but we’re about to have a deal. We destroyed Iran’s military. No, we left it intact. We want regime change. No we don’t. We already accomplished it. We “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program a year ago. We had to go to war in February to prevent nuclear war. The Strait of Hormuz is open, closed, or something in-between. No deal without “unconditional surrender.” Let’s make a deal!
This everything-all-at-once vibe can be disorienting, particularly since most Americans didn’t have a war with Iran on their bingo cards until the shooting had already started. President Trump didn’t prepare the country or consult with Congress beforehand because he thought it would all be a smashing success in a matter of weeks.
The miscalculation that started it all: killing Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and much of Iran’s senior leadership, on the first day of the war. To “the great proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand,” Trump announced on Feb. 28. “When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations.”
I support regime change in Iran and shed no tears for Khamenei or his goons. But when you start a war by killing the regime’s top leaders, it’s not unreasonable for the remaining ones to conclude that you really intend regime change.
Khamenei was a murderous fanatic, but he was a fairly cautious one. He liked to threaten closing the Strait of Hormuz or attacking our regional allies, but he was reluctant to actually do it, fearing it would invite a regime change war. The mullahs and IRGC goons believed, not unreasonably, that if they lost their grip on power, they’d be lynched by the Iranian people they’ve brutalized for decades.
By starting with a regime change war, Trump removed any reason for the regime not to go for broke. When you have nothing to lose — particularly when you are a millenarian religious fanatic — a Persian Alamo strategy makes a lot of sense.
So Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz and attacked its neighbors.
But it turns out this wasn’t the Alamo. In the contest of wills, Trump blinked. The Iranian regime’s tolerance for punishment proved — so far — to be greater than Trump’s and that of our gulf allies. Militarily we could finish the job, but that would require ground troops and much greater economic turmoil. In a conflict Trump launched unilaterally without the prior support of Congress, NATO or the American people, Trump doesn’t have the political capital for that.
But that’s only half the problem. Trump wants the war over, but he doesn’t want to pay — militarily, economically, politically — what that would cost. So he wants to make a deal that ends it. But there is no deal available that wouldn’t come at an equally undesirable cost. Any deal that looks like what President Obama struck with the Iranians would be too embarrassing to bear. But the Iranians are convinced that they can get just such a deal, and they’re willing to drag things out as long as it takes.
The result: Trump’s in a box of his own making. He thinks he can talk his way out by simply asserting a reality that doesn’t exist. When the financial markets get nervous, he announces a breakthrough that is, at best, a possibility. When the Iranians agree to a deal that looks similar to one Obama might negotiate, Trump goes back to his threats.
It can’t go on forever. But I’m sure it’ll last until long after this column is forgotten.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.