Whose power is the war power?

The Hill

10-07-2025

June was dominated in official Washington by news of all the political gyrations, frustrations and manipulations in President Trump's massive reconciliation bill, which covered everything from budget cuts and tax cuts to border security and defense spending increases.
Trump's 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act,' as it was officially titled, was only displaced briefly as the top story by his June 21 use of B-2 Spirit bombers to drop a dozen big bad bunker-busting bombs on three Iranian nuclear enrichment facilities.
The response from Congress was tepid at best, mainly because the bombing was followed by a cease-fire between Iran and Israel and Trump's assurance that the bombing had destroyed Iran's ability to develop nuclear weapons for decades to come. Any further U.S. military actions would not be necessary.
Nevertheless, there was some concern on Capitol Hill that the president was going back on his campaign promises not to involve the U.S. in any more 'forever wars' in the Middle East, or anywhere else. That concern was reflected in public opinion polls showing overwhelming American opposition to being drawn-in militarily to the Israeli-Iranian conflict.
During Trump's elaborate June 14 celebration in Washington of the U.S. Army's 250th anniversary, the display of military hardware on parade evoked reactions of both pride and trepidation. Large counter protests were held across the country that same day under the rubric, 'No More Kings.'
Members of Congress from both parties shared private concerns that Congress should play some role in at least overseeing any potential expansion of hostilities given the first branch's constitutional role to declare war. Whenever the U.S. is either attacked by a foreign power or initiates a preemptive strike against a foreign power, Congress usually reacts, at least rhetorically, to protect its prerogatives. At the very least, Congress expects to be consulted, either before or after an executive military move, and asked to authorize any continuing action.
All this back-and-forth raises the question as to whose power is the war power. The historical record of constitutional debates shows that the founders intentionally meant that answer to remain ambiguous so the two branches could sort it out, depending on the situation. Out of the tug-and-pull between the two branches, the American people would be alerted to the core issues involved and weigh-in with their elected representatives.
That has not stopped Congress from trying to better define and delineate the lines of responsibility. The last declaration of war was for World War II. In 1973, during the tumult of the Vietnam War, Congress enacted the War Powers Resolution with, certain conditions and guard rails for American military involvement abroad. The measure was enacted over President Richard Nixon's veto. He argued the act put unconstitutional constraints on his role as commander-in-chief.
Under the War Powers Resolution, absent a direct attack or a declaration of war by Congress, the president's commitment of troops to hostilities must terminate after 60 days. Congress can end the U.S. role sooner by passing a concurrent resolution (which does not require the president's approval). Or, Congress can extend the continuation of American involvement by enacting a joint resolution authorizing the use of military force.
In the Iran case last month, Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) introduced concurrent resolutions in their respective chambers prohibiting the president from going to war with Iran. Kaine switched to a joint resolution at the last minute using a process under the International Security Assistance and Arms Export Control Act to bar military action.
On June 27, the Senate voted 47-53 to reject Kaine's motion to discharge the bill from the Foreign Relations Committee. In the House, Massie said he would not call-up his concurrent resolution to bar war with Iran so long as the cease fire with Israel held.
Trump, while not seeking a formal authorization for the use of military force against Iran, either before or after the bombing, did send letters to the House and Senate leaders on June 23 explaining the reasons for his actions, in compliance with the War Powers Resolution's requirement 'to keep Congress fully informed.'
Nevertheless, as some have pointed out, every action by a president without Congress's involvement is a unique case and thereby sets a new precedent and justification for future unilateral presidential military actions. Every new situation in which Congress refrains from asserting its war power role simply puts a new arrow in the president's quiver.
Don Wolfensberger is a 28-year congressional staff veteran culminating as chief of staff of the House Rules Committee in 1995. He is author of, 'Congress and the People: Deliberative Democracy on Trial' (2001), and, 'Changing Cultures in Congress: From Fair Play to Power Plays' (2018).