Can Trump Go To War With Iran? The 50-Year-Old Law That Few Presidents Fear

India.com

6 hours ago

Washington/New Delhi: When President Donald Trump was asked on the White House lawn whether the United States might join Israel in its war with Iran, he gave a vague, provocative and open-ended reply in his signature style. 'I may do it. I may not,' he shrugged.
The words were casual and almost dismissive. But they carried the weight of a nation. With every passing hour, the possibility of American boots stepping into a new Middle Eastern firestorm seems less hypothetical.
His administration, too, has made its stance clear. 'He (Trump) is the one making the decisions. What comes next is his call,' said State Department spokeswoman Tammy Bruce.
But not everyone agrees that war should hinge on one man's instinct. Some lawmakers and peace advocates are once again invoking a nearly forgotten piece of legislation that was supposed to stop presidents from doing exactly this.
It is called the War Powers Act, which was passed in 1973. It was meant to rein in the president's power to send soldiers into foreign battles without Congress's approval. Whether it still has any real teeth, though, is up for debate.
A Promise Made After a Bloody Past
The War Powers Resolution was born from the trauma of Vietnam – a war launched with no formal declaration, prolonged through executive decisions and paid for with tens of thousands of American lives. When it finally passed, over President Nixon's veto, the Congress was trying to reclaim some control over the blood and money being spent without their consent.
The law says the president must inform the Congress within 48 hours of any military action. It also sets a 60-to-90-day limit unless lawmakers approve an extension. The idea was to stop secret wars and endless deployments without public scrutiny.
But that is not how things unfolded.
The last time the Congress formally declared war was 1942. Since then, U.S. presidents have sent troops to Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and dozens of other countries – sometimes for full-scale invasions, other times for airstrikes or covert missions.
Instead of declarations of war, the Congress started using something called an Authorisation for Use of Military Force (AUMF). After 9/11, one such authorisation gave President George W. Bush sweeping powers to pursue terrorists across the globe. Another, in 2002, authorised military action against Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
Those authorisations are still being used today. Trump cited the 2002 AUMF to justify the assassination of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani in 2020. That strike nearly brought the United States and Iran to the brink of war without the Congress ever voting on it.
The Constitution says the Congress has the power. So what happened? Technically, the U.S. Constitution gives the Congress the authority to declare war. But over the decades, that power has been slowly swallowed by the executive branch. The president is the commander-in-chief. That title, often interpreted loosely, has become a tool to bypass Capitol Hill.
Even when lawmakers try to reassert themselves, they run into brick walls. In 2019, the Congress voted to end U.S. support for the Saudi-led war in Yemen. Trump vetoed it. In 2020, after the Soleimani strike, both the House and Senate passed a resolution to limit the president's ability to strike Iran. Trump vetoed that too. The Congress did not have the votes to override him.
What Happens Now?
As tensions rise again, with Israel bombing Iranian sites and Iran responding in kind, some lawmakers are trying to stop a wider war before it starts.
Senator Tim Kaine has introduced legislation requiring Trump to seek congressional approval before launching strikes on Iran. Congressman Ro Khanna and Senator Bernie Sanders are backing similar bills. But with both chambers now under the Republican control, the chances of these bills surviving a veto are slim.
The real test is not legal. It is political. Do lawmakers have the courage and the numbers to pull the brakes on a president ready to act unilaterally?
The War Powers Act matters; but in practice, it rarely stops anything. More than 100 times since 1973, presidents have reported military action to the Congress under the law. But very few of those actions were ever challenged or reversed. Critics say the law is toothless and more of a formality than a firewall.
Even former President Joe Biden, who once criticised its limits as a senator, has sidestepped the War Powers Act in recent years. Regardless of who is in charge, the White House tends to argue that 'emergency' powers and AUMFs are enough.
As war brews once more in the Middle East, the stakes are no longer hypothetical. Americans could again be drawn into a conflict that starts with one missile but escalates quickly beyond control.
The War Powers Act was written to stop exactly that. Whether it can still do the job or whether Trump will ignore it like so many presidents before him remains an open question.
But if history offers any warning, it is this – once the war begins, the Congress may be the last to find out, and the people the last to understand why.