Presidents vs. Congress: Trump is only the latest to test the War Powers Act
WASHINGTON (AP) — Donald Trump isn't the first president to order military strikes without congressional approval. But his decision to bomb Iran comes at a uniquely volatile moment — both at home and abroad.
Overseas, the U.S. risks deeper entanglement in the Middle East if fighting erupts again between Israel and Iran. At home, Trump continues to sidestep oversight, showing little regard for checks and balances.
His move has reignited a decades-old debate over the War Powers Act, a law passed in the early 1970s meant to divide authority over military action between Congress and the president. Critics say Trump violated the act by striking with little input from Congress, while supporters argue he responded to an imminent threat and is looking to avoid prolonged conflict.
Even after Trump announced late Monday that a 'complete and total ceasefire' between Israel and Iran would take effect over the next 24 hours, tensions remained high in Congress over Trump's action. A vote is expected in the Senate later this week on a Democratic Iran war powers resolution that is meant to place a check on Trump when it comes to further entanglement with Iran.
Here's a closer look at what the act does and doesn't do, how past presidents have tested it and how Congress plans to respond:
Dividing war powers between Congress and the president
Passed in the wake of American involvement in Vietnam, the War Powers Resolution prescribes how the president should work with lawmakers to deploy troops if Congress hasn't already issued a declaration of war.
It states that the framers of the Constitution intended for Congress and the President to use its 'collective judgement' to send troops into 'hostilities.' The War Powers Resolution calls for the president 'in every possible instance' to 'consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces.'
But when Congress enacted the law, 'it didn't install any hard requirements, and it provided a lot of outs,' said Scott Anderson, a fellow at the Brookings Institution.
'Habitual practice for presidents in the last few decades has been to minimally — almost not at all — consult with Congress on a lot of military action,' Anderson said. And 'the language of the statute is so vague and open-ended that it's hard to say it's in clear contradiction' to the War Powers Resolution.
Unless a Declaration of War has already been passed or Congress has authorized deploying forces, the president has 48 hours after deploying troops to send a written report to congressional leadership explaining the decision. Trump did so on Monday, sending Congress a letter that said strikes on Iran over the weekend were 'limited in scope and purpose' and 'designed to minimize casualties, deter future attacks and limit the risk of escalation.'
In March, when Trump ordered airstrikes in Houthi-held areas in Yemen, he wrote a letter to congressional leadership explaining his rationale and reviewing his orders to the Department of Defense. President Joe Biden wrote nearly 20 letters citing the War Powers Resolution during his term.
If Congress doesn't authorize further action within 60 to 90 days, the resolution requires that the president 'terminate any use' of the armed forces. 'That's the hard requirement of the War Powers Resolution,' Anderson said.
How past presidents have used it
Congress hasn't declared war on another country since World War II, but U.S. presidents have filed scores of reports pursuant to the War Powers Resolution since it was enacted in 1973, over President Richard Nixon's veto.
Presidents have seized upon some of the vague wording in the War Powers Resolution to justify their actions abroad. In 1980, for example, Jimmy Carter argued that attempting to rescue hostages from Iran didn't require a consultation with Congress, since it wasn't an act of war, according to the Congressional Research Service.
President George W. Bush invoked war powers in the weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and persuaded Congress to approve an authorization for the use of military force against Iraq in 2002.
Throughout his presidency, President Barack Obama faced pressure to cease operations in Libya after 90 days. But his administration argued that the U.S. use of airpower in Libya didn't rise to the level of 'hostilities' set forth in the War Powers Resolution.
What Congress is doing now
Trump's actions in Iran have drawn the loudest praise from the right and the sharpest rebukes from the left. But the response hasn't broken cleanly along party lines.
Daily developments have also complicated matters. Trump on Sunday raised the possibility of a change in leadership in Iran, before on Monday announcing that Israel and Iran had agreed to a 'complete and total' ceasefire to be phased in over the next 24 hours.
Nevertheless, the Senate could vote as soon as this week on a resolution directing the removal of U.S. forces from hostilities against Iran that have not been authorized by Congress.
Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., the bill's sponsor, told reporters Monday — prior to the ceasefire announcement — that the vote could come 'as early as Wednesday, as late as Friday.' He expects bipartisan backing, though support is still coming together ahead of a classified briefing for senators on Tuesday.
'There will be Republicans who will support it,' Kaine said. 'Exactly how many, I don't know.'
He added that, 'this is as fluid a vote as I've been involved with during my time here, because the facts are changing every day.'
Passing the resolution could prove difficult, especially with Republicans praising Trump after news of the ceasefire broke. Even prior to that, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., defended Trump's actions on Monday and said he's operating within his authority.
'There's always a tension between Congress' power to declare war and the president's power as commander in chief,' said Sen. John Kennedy, R-La. 'But I think the White House contacted its people, as many people as they could.'
A similar bipartisan resolution in the House — led by Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna and Republican Rep. Thomas Massie — could follow soon, although Massie signaled Monday that he may no longer pursue it if peace has been reached.
Khanna was undeterred.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
33 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
‘Alligator Alcatraz': What you need to know about the Everglades detention camp
Florida's decision to build a massive detention facility for undocumented immigrants in the middle of the Everglades is fast becoming one of the most controversial symbols of the Trump administration's immigration crackdown. It pits environmental protection and Indigenous rights against political ambitions and border enforcement priorities. And with the facility expected to open soon, the fight over the swamp-bound detention center seems far from over. Dubbed 'Alligator Alcatraz' by its backers, the project reflects Governor Ron DeSantis and President Donald Trump's aggressive approach to immigration enforcement. Here's what we know so far: Q: What exactly is being built in the Everglades? Florida has begun construction on a 1,000-bed migrant detention center on an old airstrip in the Big Cypress National Preserve, a protected part of the Everglades. The facility, which officials describe as 'temporary,' will consist primarily of large tents and trailers and is expected to house undocumented immigrants detained both within and outside Florida. With support from the federal government, administration of Gov. Ron DeSantis began moving in trucks this week loaded with portable toilets, industrial generators and supplies to establish what state officials are calling 'Alligator Alcatraz.' A private emergency management company was also spotted on site assisting with the rapid setup. Q: Why is it being called 'Alligator Alcatraz'? A: The nickname came from Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier, a Trump ally who touted the site in a video posted on social media. He emphasized the remote and hazardous nature of the swamp, saying, 'There's not much waiting for [detainees] other than alligators and pythons. Nowhere to go, nowhere to hide.' The term underscores how the isolation and natural dangers of the area are being used as a deterrent — and potentially a substitute for traditional security infrastructure. Q: Why is the location controversial? A: The Everglades is one of the most important and fragile ecosystems in the United States. Environmentalists and local officials argue that placing a detention center there will damage critical wetlands, disrupt wildlife habitats, and undermine decades of restoration work. Over the past 35 years, more than $10 billion has been spent to restore the Everglades' natural water flow. The site is also historically significant. In the 1960s, there was a failed plan to build a massive international airport in the same area. That project was ultimately scrapped by President Richard Nixon, who called the cancellation 'an outstanding victory for conservation.' Q: How much will it cost, and who is footing the bill? A: The migrant detention facility is among several facilities planned by the state that together will cost around $450 million annually to operate, according to federal estimates. This includes the cost of setting up and running the facility on the site of the Dade-Collier Training and Transition Airport. While the state is responsible for the initial construction and setup, it can seek reimbursement for some of these costs from the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Q: Who owns that land? A: The site falls within Miami-Dade County, and the state has offered $20 million to purchase the land. But two recent appraisals pegged the value at nearly $195 million. Despite the lack of a finalized purchase, the state has already invoked emergency powers from a 2023 executive order to take control of the property and begin development. Q: What's the federal government's role in the project? A: The Department of Homeland Security supports the construction of new detention centers in Florida, calling them 'cost-effective and innovative.' Florida will run the facility, with the possibility of reimbursement through FEMA's Shelter and Services Program, which has allocated $625 million for the effort. DHS Secretary Kristi Noem has defended the move, saying the previous administration used the program as a 'piggy bank' to support sanctuary cities and migrant services. The current plan redirects those funds to state-run detention infrastructure. Q: What will the facility look like when it's up? A: Picture a remote, temporary 'tent city' with minimal permanent infrastructure, nestled deep in swamplands teeming with dangerous wildlife. It's built within fenced perimeter zones — if fences are added — relying largely on Mother Nature as the security cordon. The stark visuals: rows of white-tan tents, trailers, and utility pods sitting on a cleared airfield, surrounded by dense wetlands, clouds of mosquitoes and lurking reptiles. Q: How many people will the facility hold? A: It is initially designed to hold from 500 to 1,000 detainees when it opens, but there are plans to expand it. Q: When will it open? A: The facility could become operational within 30 to 60 days of the start of construction. Q: Is the airport currently in use? A: Yes. The Dade–Collier Training and Transition Airport is operational, but it's primarily used for general aviation and flight training. While it was initially planned to be a major airport, environmental concerns and the development of flight simulators led to its current role. Q: What are critics saying? A: The plan has triggered widespread outrage: Environmentalists warn that the facility could pollute wetlands and threaten endangered species such as manatees, wood storks, and American crocodiles. Eve Samples, director of Friends of the Everglades, called the risks to water, waste, and ancillary development 'devastating.'Native American leaders, like Betty Osceola of the Miccosukee Tribe, say they were not consulted. Osceola, who lives just three miles from the site, said the gates to the airstrip were locked for the first time she can remember during a Sunday protest. 'The speed at which things are happening—and the secretiveness with which things are happening—is deeply concerning,' she rights advocates say the use of tents in a remote swamp during peak summer heat shows a callous disregard for the health and dignity of detainees. Mark Fleming of the National Immigrant Justice Center called it 'an independent, unaccountable detention system' that 'shocks the conscience.'Alex Howard, a former DHS spokesperson under the Biden administration, was even more blunt: 'You don't solve immigration by disappearing people into tents guarded by gators. You solve it with lawful processing, humane infrastructure, and actual policy—not by staging a $450 million stunt in the middle of hurricane season.' Q: What's the position of local government? A: Miami-Dade County owns the airfield land. County Mayor Daniella Levine Cava has raised objections over the state's aggressive tactics and environmental risks. In a letter to Florida's emergency management chief, she warned that 'the impacts to the Everglades ecosystem could be devastating' and said the state has not given the county enough time to evaluate the plans. Q: Has construction actually started? A: Yes. Trucks and contractors began arriving Sunday, and construction officially began Monday. Attorney General Uthmeier said the facility is scheduled to be operational by the first week of July. The setup includes heavy-duty tents, trailers, solar panels, and large generators. No brick-and-mortar construction is planned, according to state officials. Q: Is this part of a larger immigration crackdown? A: Absolutely. The Everglades project is a symbol of Trump's revived mass deportation efforts. In addition to Florida's new detention site, the administration has also sent migrants to Guantánamo Bay and a megaprison in El Salvador. Trump officials say the number of available detention beds nationally will determine how many people they can deport. They've asked Congress for more funding to expand capacity beyond the current 56,000 detainees—a sharp increase from the Biden administration's final months. Florida, under DeSantis, has passed laws criminalizing the presence of undocumented immigrants in the state and has carried out joint operations with federal agents, arresting over 1,100 migrants in a single week this spring. Q: Will the detention center be permanent? A: Officials insist the facility is temporary, but critics remain skeptical. With emergency powers invoked, federal dollars flowing, and infrastructure rapidly expanding, many worry the tents could outlast their stated purpose. As environmentalist Eve Samples put it: 'Once something's built in the Everglades, it rarely goes away.'
Axios
33 minutes ago
- Axios
Parliamentarian tosses public lands sales, LNG permitting plans
The Senate's nonpartisan referee has ruled against GOP attempts to use reconciliation to mandate public lands sales and to allow gas exporters to pay for expedited approvals, Democrats said. Why it matters: Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough's rulings mean those Energy and Natural Resources Committee provisions would be subject to the Senate's typical 60-vote threshold, dooming their passage in the reconciliation process. Selling public lands is a chief priority of ENR Chairman Mike Lee, but other Republicans have staunchly opposed the idea. MacDonough, in overnight rulings, rejected several sections of bill text that ENR proposed this month, according to Senate Budget Committee Democrats. Mandatory public land sales: This section would mandate the Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service sell millions of acres of public land across 11 Western states. LNG exports: This section would create a regime to allow natural gas exporters to pay a fee to have the Energy Department deem their projects to be "in the public interest." Geothermal leasing and royalties: These sections would require Interior to hold yearly geothermal lease sales and change how geothermal royalties are calculated. Ambler Road project: This section would require Interior to permit construction of a controversial mining road in Alaska. The other side: Lee's office didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. But he tweeted that he wouldn't abandon his efforts, citing the need to address housing prices. "Yes, the Byrd Rule limits what can go in the reconciliation bill, but I'm doing everything I can to support President Trump and move this forward," he said. "Stay tuned. We're just getting started." Other subsections that MacDonough struck include: What's next: The parliamentarian is still weighing whether to scrub three other provisions, Democrats said.
Axios
33 minutes ago
- Axios
Mike Lee's proposed public lands sale blocked by Senate parliamentarian
A proposal by Utah Sen. Mike Lee, a Republican, to sell millions of acres of public lands to private housing developers hit the skids late Monday when the Senate parliamentarian ruled it couldn't be included in President Trump's One Big, Beautiful Bill. Why it matters: Lee's plan would have ordered federal land managers to sell up to about 3.3 million acres of land for housing and infrastructure. Lands eligible for sale included some of Utah's most beloved backcountry destinations for hiking, camping, skiing and more. Driving the news: The Senate parliamentarian decided Monday night that Lee's proposal violated rules limiting "extraneous" measures that can be added during budget reconciliation. To overcome the ruling, Lee's plan would require a 60-vote majority. Catch up quick: Lee's proposed land sale prompted widespread backlash, including from some Republicans. Lee said the land sales would make room for more housing in western states — but the policy language didn't require homes built on the land to meet any standard for affordability.
