Presidents vs. Congress: Trump is only the latest to test the War Powers Act
Advertisement
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.
Get Starting Point
A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday.
Enter Email
Sign Up
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.'
Advertisement
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.
Advertisement
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.
Advertisement
'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.
'In case of a conflict in the future, we need to be on record saying no offensive war in Iran without prior authorization,' Khanna said. 'We still need a vote.'
Associated Press writers Mary Clare Jalonick and Matt Brown contributed to this report.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
19 minutes ago
- USA Today
'Doing its best to dismantle the Constitution': Biden slams Trump administration
Former President Joe Biden on Thursday accused President Donald Trump and his administration of trying to "dismantle the constitution." At the National Bar Association's 100th Annual Awards Gala, Biden said the Trump White House "is doing its best" to go after the nation's core principles and that "they've been doing it all too often with the help of a Congress that's just sitting on the sidelines and enabled by the highest court in the nation." The speech echoed the "Soul of the Nation" theme in Biden's 2020 and 2024 presidential campaigns. "In the life of our nation there are moments so stark that they divide all that came before from everything that follows. Moments that force us to confront hard truths about ourselves, our institutions and democracy itself," Biden said in his July 31 speech. "We are, in my view, at such a moment in American history." The former president also swiped at law firms that have made deals with the Trump administration, saying they were "bending to bullies." Biden, who accepted the association's C. Francis Stradford Award, called on lawyers in the room to defend the rule of law. "It means take the client that can't write the big check but needs protecting of basic fundamental rights. It means sign on to that brief that may draw the ire of people in power, but you know its the right thing to do," Biden said. Biden, Obama contrast on Trump responses Biden's remarks came just over a week after former President Barack Obama issued a statement in response to Trump's accusations of treason and the posting of an AI generated video of the 44th President being arrested. The statement, attributed to a spokesperson, called Trump's comments a "ridiculous and a weak attempt at distraction" from the ongoing controversy surrounding the Trump administration's handling of sex offender Jeffrey Epstein's criminal files. Trump has had his own share of criticism for Biden, both recent and in the past. In April, Trump blamed his predecessor for a poor economy, saying "This is Biden's Stock Market, not Trump's," adding that "we have to get rid of the Biden 'Overhang.'' He's also ordered an investigation of Biden's alleged "cognitive decline." At a 2022 rally in Arizona, Trump said "Biden has utterly humiliated our nation." In the rare post-presidency public appearance Thursday evening, Biden said that "the hard truth" of the Trump administration was that it aimed "to erase fairness, equality, to erase justice itself." Biden's remarks echoed his first post-presidency speech in April, when he accused Trump of "taking a hatchet" to the Social Security Administration.
Boston Globe
19 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Trump sharpens sanctions threat on Russia, while admitting it may not work
Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Administration officials gave no reasons to believe the latest engagement with Russia would be any more useful. And Trump himself, usually a true believer in the power of economic sanctions to alter the decisions of foreign leaders, admitted for the second time this week that Putin appears to be immune. Advertisement 'I don't know that sanctions bother him,' he said Thursday. Nonetheless, Trump has now executed a 180-degree turn on Russia, at least in tone, in roughly 180 days. He came to office questioning whether Russia was truly the invader of Ukraine, and hinting that the Ukrainians were responsible for their own troubles. His famous blowup with President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in the Oval Office in February led him to briefly cut off aid to the Ukrainian military. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth declared that Ukraine would never join NATO -- a reversal of stated American policy -- and Vice President JD Vance spoke out against arming the Ukrainians. Russia was exempted from most tariffs. Advertisement That has been followed by a series of apparent reversals, with no public acknowledgment from Trump that he is changing strategy. He no longer relies on what he has framed as a deep past relationship with Putin in an effort to win him over. In fact, he has been quite open about his frustration that conversations about ceasefires are usually followed by Russian escalation, often in the pace of drone and missile attacks. 'I think what bothers the president the most is he has these great phone calls where everyone sort of claims yeah, we'd like to see this end, if we could find a way forward,' Rubio said in his Fox interview, 'and then he turns on the news and another city has been bombed, including those far from the front lines.' 'So at some point,' Rubio told his interviewer, Brian Kilmeade of Fox News Radio, 'he's got to make a decision here about what -- how much to continue to engage in an effort to do ceasefires if one of the two sides is not interested.' On Monday, Trump said he would give Russia about 10 to 12 days to end the war before imposing 'sanctions and maybe tariffs, secondary tariffs,' a reference to sanctions on countries that trade with Russia. But there is reason to question how far Trump will push for full secondary sanctions, which would involve threatening the three countries buying much of Russia's oil and gas: China, India and Turkey. All are key to other American interests, and Trump is likely to need future favors and cooperation from them. And it is hard to imagine that China's president, Xi Jinping, would abandon Putin, his most critical partner in challenging American power. Advertisement Rubio took up the hard choices in his conversation with Kilmeade, arguing that 'the president has a lot of options.' He noted that if the United States could get at Russia's oil sales, it 'is a huge part of their revenue.' For their part, Russian officials who have long been presumed to speak with Putin's blessing have dismissed Trump's threats, portraying him in Russian media as erratic and unpredictable. 'Fifty days, it used to be 24 hours, it used to be 100 days,' Sergey Lavrov, Russia's foreign minister, said a few weeks ago, as Trump kept moving the deadlines. 'We've been through all this.' Democrats say Trump has other options: He could provide direct military aid to Ukraine, as Congress did during the Biden administration. Instead, he has an elaborate plan to sell arms and related technologies to Europe, which will then donate them to Ukraine. Trump once suggested he could end the war in 24 hours simply by negotiating with Putin, man to man. But now, as Trump's frustration over the conflict grows, his threats have raised questions about how much leverage the United States has with Russia -- and whether Trump is willing to use it. This article originally appeared in Advertisement
Hamilton Spectator
19 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Trump pushed tariffs on Canada to 35 per cent, but a CUSMA carveout creates a shield
WASHINGTON - U.S. President Donald Trump has increased tariffs on Canada to a staggering 35 per cent but a critical carveout is likely to shield most goods from the devastating duties. The White House has said the tariffs won't be applied to goods that are compliant with the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement on trade, also known as CUSMA. Here's what that means for Canadian companies: What is CUSMA compliance? CUSMA was negotiated during the first Trump administration to replace the North American Free Trade Agreement. Companies can claim preferential treatment under CUSMA if they meet its rules of origin. While it is different depending on the product, generally it requires a specific amount of the goods be made of products or with labour originating from Canada, Mexico or the United States. About 80 to 90 per cent of Canadian goods might be able to comply with CUSMA's rules of origin, said Michael Dobner, the national leader of economics and policy practice at PricewaterhouseCoopers Canada. Not all exporters have filed the necessary paperwork to avoid the duties. There's been an increase in businesses claiming preferential treatment under CUSMA but it's not clear exactly how much of Canadian exports are currently compliant. Are any industries more at risk? Dobner said there's no specific industry that he expects to be hit the hardest. Certain companies may not be able to source input materials from North America to make their product. That means they would not be able to apply for preferential treatment under CUSMA and will face the 35 per cent tariff. But Dobner said 'it's the minority of the exports of Canada to the U.S.' What's the impact on small and medium-sized businesses? Small and medium-sized businesses may have not applied for CUSMA preferential status before Trump's tariffs because the process can be burdensome for enterprises of that size. Some small and medium-sized businesses might not meet CUSMA rules of origin requirements and don't have the financial flexibility to change their inputs to North American products. Dan Kelly, president and CEO of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, said many of these businesses were absorbing some or all of the costs associated with Trump's tariffs under the assumption that there would a resolution coming. Kelly said some small and medium-sized businesses facing the 35 per cent tariff may have to stop selling into the United States. This report by The Canadian Press was first published Aug. 1, 2025.
