The War Powers Resolution of the US, which restricts his powers as president to wage wars
The
War Powers Resolution (also known as the
War Powers Resolution of 1973 or the
War Powers Act[1]) (
50 U.S.C. ch. 33) is a
federal law intended to check the
U.S. president's power to commit the United States to an
armed conflict without the consent of the
U.S. Congress. The resolution was adopted in the form of a United States congressional
joint resolution. It provides that the president can send the
U.S. Armed Forces into action abroad only by Congress’s statutory authorization", or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces".
The bill was introduced by
Clement Zablocki, a Democratic congressman representing
Wisconsin's
4th district. The bill had bipartisan support and was co-sponsored by a number of U.S. military veterans.
[2] The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30-day withdrawal period, without congressional
authorization for use of military force (AUMF) or a
declaration of war by the United States. The resolution was passed by two-thirds each of the House and Senate, overriding the
veto of President
Richard Nixon.
It has been alleged that the War Powers Resolution has been violated in the past. However, no allegations have resulted in successful legal actions taken against a president.
[3]
Constitutional background
Under the
United States Constitution, war powers are divided. Under
Article I, Section 8, Congress has the power to:
- declare war
- grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal (i.e., license private citizens to capture enemy vessels)
- raise and support Armies (for terms up to two years at a time)
- provide and maintain a Navy
- make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces
- provide for calling forth the Militia
- make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water
- provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia; and
- govern such Part of [the militia] as may be employed in the Service of the United States.
Section 8 further provides that the
states have the power to:
- Appoint the Officers of the Militia; and
- train the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.
Article II, Section 2 provides that:
- "The president shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States."
It is generally agreed that the commander-in-chief role gives the president power to repel attacks against the United States
[4][5] and makes the president responsible for leading the armed forces. The president has the right to sign or veto congressional acts, such as a declaration of war, and Congress may override any such presidential veto. Additionally, when the president's actions (or inactions) provide "Aid and Comfort" to enemies or levy war against the United States, then Congress has the power to impeach and remove (convict) the president for treason. For actions short of treason, they can remove the president for "Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors", the definition of which the Supreme Court has left up to Congress. Therefore, the war power was intentionally split between Congress and the Executive to prevent unilateral executive action that is contrary to the wishes of Congress, and require a super-majority for legislative action that is contrary to the wishes of the president. Past presidential administrations have engaged the U.S. in conflict as well as directed U.S. military efforts without the approval of Congress. President
Franklin D. Roosevelt directed the U.S. Navy to protect British shipping vessels during
World War II as well as ordering the occupation of Greenland and Iceland.
[6]
History
Background and passage
During the
Vietnam War, the United States found itself involved for many years in situations of intense conflict without a declaration of war. Many members of Congress became concerned with the erosion of congressional authority to decide when the United States should become involved in a war or the use of armed forces that might lead to war. It was prompted by news leaking out that President Nixon conducted
secret bombings of Cambodia during the Vietnam War without notifying Congress.
[7] The War Powers Resolution bill was a contest between Congress and the Presidency on who has specific rights regarding wartime authorities. According to the committee report "The issue concerns the 'twilight zone' of concurrent authority which the
Founding Fathers of the United States gave the Congress and the President over the war powers of the National Government."
[8]
US President Nixon's opposition to the bill was noted by Representative
Gerald R. Ford (who would become Nixon's
vice president and presidential successor) who read aloud a telegram from the president in which Nixon warned he would veto the legislation due to its "dangerous and unconstitutional restrictions".
[9] The War Powers Resolution was passed by both the
House of Representatives and
Senate but was vetoed by President
Richard Nixon.
[10][7] By a two-thirds vote in each house, Congress
overrode the veto and enacted the joint resolution into law on 7 November 1973.
[10]
Provisions
In the absence of a declaration of war by the Congress, in any case in which the Armed Forces of the United States are introduced in hostilities, or in situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, such use of the Armed Forces of the United States in hostilities pursuant to this Act shall be reported within 48 hours in writing by the president to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the president pro tempore of the Senate, together with a full account of the circumstances under which such hostilities were initiated, the estimated scope and duration of such hostilities, and the constitutional and legislative authority under which the introduction of hostilities took place.
The president is to routinely consult with Congress until U.S. armed forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed. Reports are given to the House Committee of Foreign Affairs and to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
[11]
Implementation, 1993–2002
With the War Powers Resolution's passing, both the deployment of troops to conflict and the stationing of troops past 60 days would now need prior congressional approval. The President would now need to routinely consult with Congress for the duration of the conflict.
[12] The resolution is considered to be a critically important bill in reestablishing congressional capabilities.
[13] As of March 2026 the War Powers Resolution Reporting Project lists 132 times presidents have submitted "48 hour reports."
[14]
Congress invoked the War Powers Resolution in the
Multinational Force in Lebanon Act (P.L. 98-119), which authorized the
Marines to remain in
Lebanon for 18 months during 1982 and 1983. In addition, the
Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 1991 (
Pub. L. 102–1), which authorized United States combat operations against Iraqi forces during the 1991
Gulf War, stated that it constituted specific statutory authorization within the meaning of the War Powers Resolution.
The Reagan Administration harbored extensive reservations about the War Powers Resolution's constitutionality and efficacy. Legal Advisor to the State Department
Abraham Sofaer argued that the WPR's deadlines "creates unwise limitations on Presidential authority to deploy U.S. forces in the interests of U.S. national security" and that "the President's constitutional authority cannot in any case even be impermissibly infringed by statute."
[15] More specifically, the Administration sought to make clear that the resolution should not be applied to anti-terrorist operations, a use of force, according to Sofaer, "that is more analogous to law enforcement activity by policy in the domestic context than it is to the 'hostilities' between states."
[16]
On 9 November 1993, the House used a section of the War Powers Resolution to state that U.S. forces should be withdrawn from
Somalia by 31 March 1994;
[17] Congress had already taken this action in appropriations legislation. Under
President Bill Clinton, war powers were at issue in
former Yugoslavia,
Bosnia,
Kosovo,
Iraq, and
Haiti, and under President
George W. Bush in responding to terrorist attacks against the U.S. after
September 11, 2001. "
n 1999, President Clinton kept the bombing campaign in Kosovo going for more than two weeks after the 60-day deadline had passed. Even then, however, the Clinton legal team opined that its actions were consistent with the War Powers Resolution because Congress had approved a bill funding the operation, which they argued constituted implicit authorization. That theory was controversial because the War Powers Resolution specifically says that such funding does not constitute authorization."[18] Clinton's actions in Kosovo were challenged by a member of Congress as a violation of the War Powers Resolution in the D.C. Circuit case Campbell v. Clinton, but the court found the issue was a non-justiciable political question.[19] It was also accepted that because Clinton had withdrawn from the region 12 days prior the 90-day required deadline, he had managed to comply with the act.[20]
After the 1991 Gulf War, the use of force to obtain Iraqi compliance with United Nations resolutions, particularly through enforcement of Iraqi no-fly zones, remained a war powers issue. In October 2002 Congress enacted the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Pub. L. 107–243 (text) (PDF) , which authorized US President George W. Bush to use force as necessary to defend the United States against Iraq and enforce relevant UN Security Council Resolutions.[21] This was in addition to the Authorization for Use of Military Force of 2001.
Libya, 2011
See also: 2011 military intervention in Libya
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testified to Congress in March 2011 that the Obama administration did not need congressional authorization for its military intervention in Libya or for further decisions about it, despite congressional objections from members of both parties that the administration was violating the War Powers Resolution.[22][23] During that classified briefing, she reportedly indicated that the administration would sidestep the Resolution's provision regarding a 60-day limit on unauthorized military actions.[24] Months later, she stated that, with respect to the military operation in Libya, the United States was still flying a quarter of the sorties, and The New York Times reported that, while many presidents had bypassed other sections of the War Powers Resolution, there was little precedent for exceeding the 60-day statutory limit on unauthorized military actions—a limit which the Justice Department had said in 1980 was constitutional.[25][26] The US State Department publicly took the position in June 2011 that there was no "hostility" in Libya within the meaning of the War Powers Resolution, contrary to legal interpretations in 2011 by the US Department of Defense and the US Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel.[27][28][29]
May 20, 2011 marked the 60th day of U.S. combat in Libya (as part of the UN resolution) but the deadline arrived without President Barack Obama seeking specific authorization from the U.S. Congress.[30] President Obama notified Congress that no authorization was needed,[31] since the U.S. leadership had been transferred to NATO,[32] and since U.S. involvement was somewhat "limited". In fact, as of 28 April 2011, the U.S. had conducted 75% of all aerial refueling sorties, supplied 70% of the operation's intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, and contributed 24 percent of the total aircraft used in the operation.[33] By September, the U.S. had conducted 26 percent of all military sorties, contributing more resources to Operation Unified Protector than any other NATO country.[34] The State Department requested (but never received) express congressional authorization.[28][35]
On Friday, 3 June 2011, the US House of Representatives voted (268-145) to rebuke President Obama for maintaining an American presence in the NATO operations in Libya, which they considered a violation of the War Powers Resolution.[36][37] Yale Law professor Bruce Ackerman stated that Obama's position, "lacks a solid legal foundation. And by adopting it, the White House has shattered the traditional legal process the executive branch has developed to sustain the rule of law over the past 75 years."[38]
Syria, 2012–2017
See also: United States intervention in Syria, 2017 Shayrat missile strike, Syrian Train and Equip Program, and Timber Sycamore
In late 2012 or early 2013, at the direction of US President Barack Obama, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was put in charge of Timber Sycamore, a covert program to arm and train the rebels who were fighting against Syrian president Bashar al-Assad,[39] while the State Department supplied the Free Syrian Army with non-lethal aid. Following the use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Civil War on several occasions, including the Ghouta chemical attack on 21 August 2013, Obama asked Congress for authorization to use military force in Syria, which Congress rejected. Instead, Congress passed Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2015 that specified that the Defense Secretary was authorized "...to provide assistance, including training, equipment, supplies, and sustainment, to appropriately vetted elements of the Syrian opposition and other appropriately vetted Syrian groups and individuals...." The bill specifically prohibited the introduction of US troops or other US forces into hostilities. The bill said, "Nothing in this section shall be construed to constitute a specific statutory authorization for the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein hostilities are clearly indicated by the circumstances."[40]
In spite of the prohibition, Obama, and later US President Donald Trump, introduced ground forces into Syria, and the United States became fully engaged in the country, though these troops were primarily for training allied forces. On 6 April 2017, the United States launched 59 BGM-109 Tomahawk missiles at Shayrat airbase in Syria in response to Syria's alleged use of chemical weapons. Constitutional scholar and law professor Stephen Vladeck has noted that the strike potentially violated the War Powers Resolution.[41]
In June 2015, Jim McGovern introduced H.Con.Res. 55 in the House which was cosponsored by five other representatives. The same month, the House voted (288-139) against the resolution. In March 2023, Matt Gaetz introduced H.Con.Res. 21 in the House, cosponsored by four other representatives. The same month, the House voted (321-103) against the resolution.
Yemen, 2018–2019
See also: United States support for Saudi Arabian–led operations in Yemen and assassination of Jamal Khashoggi
S.J.Res. 7
| Legislative history | |
|---|
| |
| Long title | A joint resolution to direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities in the Republic of Yemen that have not been authorized by Congress. |
|---|
| |
Bernie Sanders introduced S.J.Res. 54 in the Senate during the 115th Congress in February 2018, but the Senate voted to table the motion in March 2018. Interest grew in the bill after the assassination of Jamal Khashoggi in October 2018, with the Senate also approving S.J.Res. 69 holding Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman responsible for Khashoggi's death. The Senate voted (56-41) to invoke the War Powers Resolution in December 2018. However, the House of Representatives did not vote on the resolution before the conclusion of the 115th Congress.[42][43][44][45]
S.J.Res. 7 was introduced in the 116th Congress in January 2019. The bill was approved by the Senate and the House of Representatives.[46][47] The bill was vetoed by President Trump on 16 April 2019. On 2 May 2019, the Senate failed to reach the two-thirds majority vote in order to override the veto.[48]
Iran, 2020
See also: Assassination of Qasem Soleimani
In January 2020, Tim Kaine (D–VA) introduced S.J.Res. 63 in the Senate which was cosponsored by 33 other representatives,[49][50] Bernie Sanders (I–VT) introduced S. 3159 in the Senate which was cosponsored by 13 other representatives, and Ro Khanna (D–CA) introduced H.R. 5543 in the House which was cosponsored by 106 other representatives.[51]
The Trump administration stated that the attack on Qasem Soleimani was carried out in accordance with the War Powers Resolution under the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. The legalities of using the AUMF for endless conflicts has been a source of debate.[52][53][54][55]
S.J.Res. 68
| Legislative history | |
|---|
|
| |
| Long title | A joint resolution to direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran that have not been authorized by Congress. |
|---|
| |
On 13 February 2020, the Senate passed S.J.Res. 68 (55-45). The Democratic-controlled House of Representatives passed it on 11 March 2020 (227-186). Trump vetoed the resolution on 6 May 2020, stating that it mistakenly "implies that the president's constitutional authority to use military force is limited to defense of the United States and its forces against imminent attack." Kaine stated Trump's veto could enable "endless wars" and "unnecessary war in the Middle East".[56] The Senate attempted to override the veto the following day. The attempt needed at least 67 votes to override, with it failing by a vote of 49–44.[57]
Niger, 2023
See also: United States intervention in Niger
In September 2023, Rand Paul introduced S.J.Res. 44 in the Senate, cosponsored by Mike Lee and Roger Marshall. In October 2023, the Senate voted (86-11) against the resolution.
Iran, 2025
See also: Twelve-Day War and 2025 United States strikes on Iranian nuclear sites
In June 2025, Thomas Massie introduced H.Con.Res. 38 in the House which was cosponsored by 94 other representatives. It was referred to a committee where it remained until March 2026. In the Senate, Tim Kaine introduced S.J.Res. 59[58] which failed to discharge from committee (47-53) and Bernie Sanders introduced the “No War Against Iran Act” (S. 2087) which was cosponsored by 7 other senators. The “No War Against Iran Act” was referred to a committee.[59]
Caribbean and Venezuela, 2025–2026
See also: United States military buildup in the Caribbean during Operation Southern Spear
House
In the House:
Senate
In the Senate:
On 8 January 2026, the Senate voted (52-47) to discharge S.J.Res. 98 from committee (“to direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities within or against Venezuela that have not been authorized by Congress”).[60] On 14 January, Vice President JD Vance broke a (50-50) tie vote to block the resolution.[61]
S.J.Res 83 and 90, in October[62] and November[63] 2025 respectively, both failed a motion to discharge.
Iran, 2026
See also: 2026 Iran war
See also: § Iran, 2025
H.Con.Res. 86
On May 1, 2026, the 60 day deadline, upon which, without congressional authorization, hostilities must cease, the president, Donald Trump sent a letter to Congress that said:[64][65]
On April 7, 2026, I ordered a 2-week ceasefire.
The ceasefire has since been extended. There has been no exchange of fire between United States Forces and Iran since April 7, 2026. The hostilities that began on February 28, 2026, have terminated.
Hours later, President Trump said "You know we’re in a war".[66][67]
In June 2026, for the first time,[68] both chambers of Congress agreed to a concurrent resolution under the War Powers Resolution, "Directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities with Iran."[69][70][71]
House
- March 5, 2026: The House blocked H.Con.Res. 38 (219-212). The resolution was introduced by Thomas Massie (R-KY-4) in June 2025. 210 Democrats, Massie and Warren Davidson voted yea. Tony Gonzales did not vote. 215 Republicans and Henry Cuellar, Jared Golden, Greg Landsman and Juan Vargas voted nay.
- April 16, 2026: The House blocked H.Con.Res. 40 (214-213). The resolution was introduced by Gregory Meeks in June 2025. 212 Democrats and Thomas Massie voted yea. Warren Davidson voted present. Lauren Boebert, Thomas Kean Jr. and Nancy Mace did not vote. 212 Republicans, Jared Golden and Kevin Kiley voted nay.
- May 14, 2026 the House blocked H.Con.Res. 75 (212-212). 209 Democrats, Thomas Massie, Brian K. Fitzpatrick, and Tom Barrett voted yea. 210 Republicans, Kevin Kiley and Jared Golden voted nay. Neal Dunn, Michael Guest, Thomas Kean Jr., Teresa Leger Fernández, Julia Letlow and Frederica Wilson did not vote.
- June 3, 2026 the House passed H.Con.Res. 86 (215-208). 211 Democrats, Thomas Massie, Brian K. Fitzpatrick, Warren Davidson and Tom Barrett voted yea. 207 Republicans and Kevin Kiley voted nay. Pramila Jayapal, Dusty Johnson, Thomas Kean Jr., Morgan Luttrell, Nancy Mace, Ralph Norman, and Andy Ogles did not vote.
H.Con.Res. 87, H.Con.Res. 88, H.Con.Res. 89, H.Con.Res. 91, H.Con.Res. 92, H.Con.Res. 93, H.Con.Res. 94, H.Con.Res. 95, H.Con.Res. 99, H.Con.Res. 100, H.Con.Res. 101, H.Con.Res. 102, H.Con.Res. 103 and H.Con.Res. 104 have also been introduced "Directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities with Iran."
Senate
- March 4, 2026: The Senate blocked S.J.Res. 104 (53-47), along party lines with the exceptions of Rand Paul (R-KY) who voted yea and John Fetterman (D-PA) who voted nay (to block the resolution).
- March 18, 2026: The Senate blocked S.J.Res. 118 (53-47)
- March 24, 2026: The Senate blocked S.J.Res. 116 (53-47)
- April 15, 2026: The Senate blocked S.J.Res. 123 (52-47); Jim Justice did not vote.
- April 22, 2026: The Senate blocked S.J.Res. 114 (51-46); Chuck Grassley, Dave McCormick and Mark Warner did not vote; Jim Justice voted nay.
- April 30, 2026: The Senate blocked S.J.Res. 184 (50-47); Susan Collins voted yea; Jerry Moran, Patty Murray, and Tommy Tuberville did not vote
- May 13, 2026: The Senate blocked S.J.Res. 163 (50-49); Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski voted yea; Pete Ricketts did not vote
- May 19, 2026: The Senate did not block S.J.Res. 185 (50-47); Bill Cassidy,[72] Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski voted yea; John Cornyn, Thom Tillis, Tommy Tuberville did not vote[73]
- June 16, 2026: The Senate blocked S.J.Res. 172 (48-47); Bill Cassidy, Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski voted yea; Michael Bennet, Cory Booker, Josh Hawley, Mitch McConnell and Bernie Sanders did not vote.[74]
- June 23, 2026: The Senate agreed to H.Con.Res. 86 (50-48); Bill Cassidy, Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski voted yea; Mitch McConnell and Dave McCormick did not vote.[75]
S.J.Res. 115, S.J.Res. 117, S.J.Res. 161, S.J.Res. 171, S.J.Res. 180, S.J.Res. 181, S.J.Res. 183, S.J.Res. 184, and S.J.Res. 191 have also been introduced "to direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities within or against the Islamic Republic of Iran that have not been authorized by Congress."
Cuba, 2026
See also: 2026 Cuban crisis
In March 2026, Nydia Velázquez introduced H.J.Res. 153 in the House and Tim Kaine introduced S.J.Res. 124 in the Senate. In April 2026, the Senate voted (51-47) against the resolution. In May 2026, Velázquez introduced H.Con.Res. 106 in the House and Kaine introduced S.J.Res. 193 in the Senate.
Lebanon, 2026
See also: 2026 Lebanon war and Lebanon War Powers Resolution
- June 4, 2026: The House blocked H.Con.Res. 84 (324-92). The resolution was introduced by Rashida Tlaib in April 2026. 91 Democrats and Thomas Massie voted yea. Betty McCollum and Derek Tran voted present. 206 Republicans, 117 Democrats and Kevin Kiley voted nay. Andy Barr, Mike Bost, Juan Ciscomani, Pramila Jayapal, Dusty Johnson, Thomas Kean Jr., Dan Meuser, Riley Moore, Ralph Norman, Ayanna Pressley, Chip Roy, and Derrick Van Orden did not vote.
Tlaib also introduced H.Con.Res. 83 and H.Con.Res. 108.
Questions regarding constitutionality
See also: Separation of powers under the United States Constitution and War Powers Clause
The War Powers Resolution has been controversial since it was passed.[76] In passing the resolution, Congress specifically cites the Necessary and Proper Clause for its authority.[77] Under the Necessary and Proper Clause, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
There is controversy over whether the War Powers Resolution's constraints on the president's authority as Commander-in-Chief are consistent with the Constitution.[78] Presidents have therefore drafted reports to Congress required of the president to state that they are "consistent with" the War Powers Resolution rather than "pursuant to" so as to take into account the presidential position that the resolution is unconstitutional.[79]
Philip Bobbitt puts forth one argument for the unconstitutionality of the War Powers Resolution.[80] ‘The power to make war is not an enumerated power” and the notion that to "declare" war is to "commence" war is a "contemporary textual preconception". Bobbitt contends that the Framers of the Constitution believed that statutory authorization was the route by which the United States would be committed to war, and that 'declaration' was meant for only total wars, as shown by the history of the Quasi-War with France (1798–1800). In general, constitutional powers are not so much separated as "linked and sequenced"; Congress's control over the armed forces is "structured" by appropriation, while the president commands; thus the act of declaring war should not be fetishized.[clarification needed] Bobbitt also argues that, "a democracy cannot .. .tolerate secret policies" because they undermine the legitimacy of governmental action.
A second argument concerns a possible breach of the "separation of powers" doctrine, and whether the resolution changes the balance between the Legislative and Executive functions. This type of constitutional controversy is similar to one that occurred under US President Andrew Johnson with the Tenure of Office Act (1867). In that prior instance, the Congress passed a law (over the veto of the president) that required the president to secure Congressional approval for the removal of Cabinet members and other executive branch officers. The Act was repealed in 1887; in Myers v. United States (1926), when the Supreme Court of the United States struck down a similar law of 1876 relating to the postmaster general, they stated obiter that the 1867 Act had been unconstitutional.[81] When Andrew Johnson violated the Act, the House of Representatives impeached him; action in the Senate to remove him failed by one vote during his impeachment trial.[82][83]
Here, the separation of powers issue is whether the War Powers Resolution requirements for Congressional approval and presidential reporting to Congress change the constitutional balance established in Articles I and II, namely that Congress is explicitly granted the sole authority to "declare war", "make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces" (Article I Section 8, Clauses 11 and 14), and to control the funding of those same forces, while the Executive has inherent authority as Commander in Chief. This argument does not address the other reporting requirements imposed on other executive officials and agencies by other statutes, nor does it address the provisions of Article I Section 8 that explicitly gives Congress the authority to "make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces".[citation needed]
The constitution specifically states that Congress is authorized "to provide and maintain a Navy" (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 13). The idea of "maintenance" of a Navy implies that Naval Forces would be a permanent fixture of national defense.[according to whom?] Two types of Land Forces are described by the Constitution (Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 12 and 15): the Militia (armed citizenry organized into local defense forces and state volunteer regiments) which Congress can "call forth" and prescribe the "organizing, arming, and disciplining [training]" of, as Congress did in the Militia acts of 1792; and the Army, which Congress can "raise and support", through regular appropriation acts limited to no more than two years. This division matches how the Revolutionary War was fought, by the Continental Army, raised and supported by the Continental Congress, and local Militias and Volunteer Regiments, raised by the separate Colonies. After the war, under the Articles of Confederation, a small standing Army, the First American Regiment was raised and gradually increased in size over time by Congress before, following the Constitution's ratification, being transformed into the Regular Army. The availability of a standing Army, and the president of the United States being authorized as "Commander in Chief", implies his ability as a military commander to employ forces necessary to fulfill his oath to defend the constitution.[citation needed]
There is also an unresolved legal question, discussed by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Byron R. White in INS v. Chadha of whether a "key provision of the War Powers Resolution", namely 50 U.S.C. 1544(c), constitutes an improper legislative veto. (See Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 971.) That Section 1544(c) states, "such forces shall be removed by the president if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution". Justice White argues in his dissent in Chadha that under the Chadha ruling, Section 1544(c) would be a violation of the Presentment Clause. The majority in Chadha does not resolve the issue. Justice White does not address or evaluate in his dissent whether that section would fall within the inherent Congressional authority under Article I Section 8 to "make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces".[84] A post-Chadha argument for the constitutionality of the concurrent resolution is that the War Powers Resolution does not delegate legislative authority to the president, and that the Chadha ruling applies only when Congress seeks to revoke a delegation of its authority.[78]
References
- Weed, Matthew C. (December 2025). Understanding the War Powers Resolution (Report). Congressional Research Service – via Congress.gov. Although the legislation is sometimes referred to as the "War Powers Act," Section 1 establishes the title of the legislation as the War Powers Resolution.
- "Shibboleth Authentication Request". login.huaryu.kl.oakland.edu. Retrieved November 16, 2024.(subscription required)
- Global Legal Research Directorate (2007). "War Powers – Law Library of Congress – Library of Congress". Library of Congress.
- The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, at 318–19 (Max Farrand ed., rev. ed. 1966)(1911)
- [1] Archived December 15, 2008, at the Wayback Machine
- Vance, Cyrus R. (December 1984). "Striking the Balance: Congress and the President under the War Powers Resolution". University of Pennsylvania Law Review. 133 (1): 79–95. doi:10.2307/3311864. JSTOR 3311864.
- "War Powers Act". November 30, 2017.
- "Shibboleth Authentication Request". login.huaryu.kl.oakland.edu. Retrieved November 16, 2024.(subscription required)
- Richard L. Madden (July 19, 1973). "House Passes Bill to Curb President's War Powers: House Passes Bill to Restrict President's Powers to Commit Troops to War". The New York Times. ProQuest 119841442. Retrieved November 16, 2024.
- "When Congress last used its powers to declare war". December 8, 2018. Retrieved October 15, 2019.
- "H.J.Res.542 – Joint resolution concerning the war powers of Congress and the President". November 7, 1973.
- Fisher, Louis; Adler, David Gray (March 1, 1998). "The War Powers Resolution: Time to Say Goodbye". Political Science Quarterly. 113 (1): 1–20. doi:10.2307/2657648. ISSN 0032-3195. JSTOR 2657648.
- Fisher, Louis; Adler, David Gray (March 1998). "The War Powers Resolution: Time to Say Goodbye". Political Science Quarterly. 113 (1): 1–20. doi:10.2307/2657648. JSTOR 2657648. Retrieved November 16, 2024.
- "War Powers Reporting by President Purpose/Mission and Domestic Legal Authority". War Powers Resolution Reporting Project.
- U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Arms Control, International Security and Science of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (1986). War Powers, Libya, and State-Sponsored Terrorism: Hearings before the Subcommittee on Arms Control, International Security and Science of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (Report). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. pp. 5–60, 230–240.
- Ibid., p. 230–240.
- "House votes for President Clinton's deadline on U.S. Troops in Somalia". UPI. November 9, 1993.
- Savage, Charlie (2011-04-01) Clock Ticking on War Powers Resolution, The New York Times The Caucus Blog
- Campbell v. Clinton, vol. 203, February 18, 2000, p. 19, retrieved February 23, 2017
- How War Powers, Congressional Action have Intersected Over Time The Wall Street Journal (2013-09-02)
- Pub. L. 107–243 (text) (PDF)
- "Congress members grill administration officials on Libya mission". CNN. March 31, 2011.
- Lillis, Mike; et al. (March 30, 2011). "White House briefing changes few minds on Libya involvement". The Hill.
- Crabtree, Susan (March 30, 2011). "Clinton To Congress: Obama Would Ignore Your War Resolutions". Talking Points Memo.
- Charlie Savage (May 26, 2011). "Libya Effort Is Called Violation of War Act". The New York Times. p. A8.[permanent dead link]
- Savage, Charlie (June 18, 2011). "2 Top Lawyers Lost to Obama in Libya War Policy Debate". The New York Times. p. A1.
- Savage, Charlie (June 18, 2011). "President overruled 2 key lawyers on debate over Libya war policy". The Seattle Times.
- Cosgrove, Maureen "State Department legal adviser: Obama acting lawfully in Libya", JURIST (June 28, 2011).
- Gvosdev, Nikolas; Stigler, Andrew (June 28, 2011). "Defining War in an Ill-Defined World". Opinion. The New York Times. Retrieved February 13, 2020.
- Libya War Deadline Arrives Fox News
- "White House on War Powers Deadline: 'Limited' US Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorization", ABC News, May 20, 2011 Archived September 16, 2017, at the Wayback Machine
- "Libya: Nato assumes control of military operation". BBC News. March 27, 2011.
- "Libya Fact Sheet | NATO – United States Mission". Archived from the original on October 5, 2015. Retrieved October 4, 2015.
- "Remarks to the Press on Libya and Operation Unified Protector | United States Mission to NATO". Archived from the original on October 16, 2015. Retrieved October 4, 2015.
- Owen, Robert (2015). "The U.S. Experience: National Strategy and Campaign Support". In Karl Mueller (ed.). Precision and Purpose: Airpower in the Libyan Civil War. Rand Corporation. p. 105. ISBN 9780833088079.
- Dinan, Stephen, "Bipartisan Congress rebuffs Obama on Libya mission". The Washington Times, Saturday, June 4, 2011
- Steinhauer, Jennifer (June 3, 2011). "House Rebukes Obama for Continuing Libyan Mission Without Its Consent". The New York Times.
- Ackerman, Bruce. "Legal Acrobatics, Illegal War", The New York Times (June 21, 2011). Page A27.
- Barnes, Julian E.; Entous, Adam (February 17, 2015). "U.S. to Give Some Syria Rebels Ability to Call Airstrikes". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved February 17, 2015.
- Pub. L. 113–164 (text) (PDF)
- "Was Trump's Syria Strike Legal? An Expert Weighs In". Retrieved April 7, 2017.
- Levin, Marianne (March 12, 2019). "Senate set to again admonish Trump over Yemen on Wednesday". Politico. Retrieved March 13, 2019.
- Caldwell, Leigh Ann (November 28, 2018). "Senate advances bill to end U.S. involvement in Yemen war after 'inadequate' briefing on Saudi Arabia". NBC News. Retrieved January 1, 2019.
- Ward, Alex (November 28, 2018). "The Senate is moving closer to ending US support for the war in Yemen". Vox. Retrieved January 1, 2019.
- Hirschfeld Davis, Julie; Schmitt, Eric (December 13, 2018). "Senate Votes to End Aid for Yemen Fight Over Khashoggi Killing and Saudis' War Aims". The New York Times. Retrieved December 18, 2018.
- "Senate votes to end US support of Saudi-led Yemen war". BBC News. March 14, 2019. Retrieved March 14, 2019.
- Killough, Ashley; Barrett, Ted (April 4, 2019). "House sends Yemen War Powers Resolution to Trump, where it faces veto threat". CNN. Retrieved April 4, 2019.
- George, Susannah (May 2, 2019). "Trump's Yemen war policy survives Senate's veto override bid". AP News. Retrieved February 13, 2020.
- Schulz, Jacob (January 3, 2020). "Sen. Kaine Introduces War Powers Resolution on Iran Conflict". Lawfare.
- Lemieux, Melissa (January 3, 2020). "Sen. Tim Kaine Introduces Resolution to Stop War with Iran: 'I've Been Deeply Concerned about President Trump Stumbling into a War'". Newsweek. Retrieved February 13, 2020.
- Axelrod, Tal (January 3, 2020). "Sanders, Khanna introduce legislation to block funding for a war with Iran". The Hill.
- Congressional Research Service (August 15, 2024). "Assessing Recent U.S. Airstrikes in the Middle East Under the War Powers Framework" (PDF). Congress.gov. p. 5. Archived from the original (PDF) on June 25, 2025. In 2020, the Trump Administration conducted an arguably analogous airstrike in Baghdad targeting and killing Qasem Soleimani, the commander of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force. President Trump submitted a classified 48-hour report following the strike. In 2021, the Department of Justice released a redacted version of a March 2020 OLC memorandum that maintained that the President had unilateral authority to conduct the strike against Soleimani based on the President's independent Article II authority under the two-part "national interests and short of war" inquiry. Additionally, the OLC concluded that the strikes were authorized under the 2002 AUMF as a response to a "continuing threat posed by Iraq."
- Bridgeman, Tess (January 6, 2020). "The Soleimani Strike and War Powers". Just Security. National Security Adviser Robert O'Brien has claimed the strike was "authorized" in part by the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force (2002 AUMF). That claim has no merit. As Brian Egan, a former State Department Legal Adviser and former Legal Adviser to the NSC, and I have explained at Just Security, there is "no viable argument" that the 2002 AUMF authorizes force against Iran.
- Anderson, Scott R. (January 18, 2023). "How the 2002 Iraq AUMF Got to Be So Dangerous, Part 2: Interpretation and Implications". Lawfare (website). Archived from the original on March 13, 2024.
- "White House Justification for Soleimani Strike | The Iran Primer". United States Institute of Peace. February 14, 2020. Archived from the original on April 5, 2022.
- Crowley, Michael (May 6, 2020). "Trump Vetoes Measure Demanding Congressional Approval for Iran Conflict". The New York Times. Retrieved May 10, 2020.
- Zengerle, Patricia. "U.S. Senate upholds Trump veto of 'insulting' Iran war powers resolution". U.S. Archived from the original on April 15, 2023. Retrieved January 9, 2026.
- Jimison, Robert (June 17, 2025). "War Powers Debate Revived in Congress as Trump Threatens Iran". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331.
- Alex Ederson (June 17, 2025). "Lawmakers aim to stop U.S. from joining Israel's military campaign against Iran". ABC News (United States).
- "Senate advances war powers resolution to limit further Trump strikes on Venezuela". CBS News. January 8, 2026. Retrieved January 9, 2026.
- Jimison, Robert; Mineiro, Megan (January 14, 2026). "Republicans Block Effort to Check Trump's Power in Venezuela". The New York Times.
- Roll call vote 555, via Senate.gov
- Roll call vote 608, via Senate.gov
- "Dear Mr. Speaker:". DocumentCloud. May 1, 2026.
- Bennett, John T. (May 1, 2026). "Hostilities with Iran 'terminated,' Trump says in War Powers letter". Roll Call. Archived from the original on May 2, 2026.
- President Trump Participates in an Event with Seniors. The White House. May 1, 2026 – via YouTube.
- Green, Erica L.; Mineiro, Megan (May 1, 2026). "Trump Tells Congress Why He Doesn't Need Its Authorization for the Iran War". The New York Times. And just hours later on Friday, the president undercut his own argument.
"You know we're in a war," Mr. Trump said in remarks in Florida. "Because I think you would agree we cannot let lunatics have a nuclear weapon."
- Habeshian, Sareen (June 24, 2026). "Congress passes war powers measure for first time, rebuking Trump's war with Iran". BBC News. The vote marks the first time that both chambers of Congress have approved a concurrent resolution instructing a president to end a military action since the War Powers Resolution of 1973 was enacted.
- Jimison, Robert (June 23, 2026). "Senate Votes to Direct End to Iran War, Rebuking Trump on War Powers". The New York Times. The measure was a concurrent resolution, a vehicle that does not need a presidential signature to take effect but also does not become law. In 1983, the Supreme Court ruled that to have legal effect outside of Congress, legislative actions generally must pass both chambers and be presented to the president for signature or veto.
- Zengerle, Patricia (June 23, 2026). "US Senate joins House in voting to halt Iran war, rebuking Trump". Reuters. But legal experts said the issue remains unsettled. No war powers resolution had previously passed both chambers of Congress and a 1983 Supreme Court ruling said such a measure must be submitted for a president's signature or veto to have legal effect.
- O'Brien, Connor (June 23, 2026). "Senate votes to halt Iran war despite Trump's push for peace deal". POLITICO. Trump would almost certainly veto any binding legislation that restricts his authority. The Senate last month advanced a joint resolution to end the war, though Democratic advocates haven't yet pressed for another vote on the measure.
- Reilly, Mollie; Gambino, Lauren (May 19, 2026). "US Senate votes to advance resolution to curb Trump's Iran war powers". The Guardian. the eighth attempt (...) This time, Senator Bill Cassidy, fresh from a primary loss in Louisiana in a race where Trump endorsed his opponent, voted to take up the measure.
- Reed, Laura (May 19, 2026). "Tuesday, May 19, 2026". dailypress.senate.gov. 5:44 p.m. By a vote of 50-47, the Senate discharged S.J. Res 185, Kaine War Powers Resolution from the Foreign Relations Committee.
Democrat voting against: Fetterman. Republicans voting in favor: Cassidy, Collins, Murkowski, Paul. Senators not voting: Cornyn, Tillis, Tuberville.
- Jimison, Robert (June 16, 2026). "Republicans Again Block War Powers Measure in the Senate". The New York Times. The vote was 48 to 47 on Democrats' ninth bid (...) Democrats notably opted not to force a vote on a similar resolution that advanced after drawing the same four Republican supporters, suggesting that they did not believe they would have the support within the G.O.P. to win final approval of such a measure.
- Hubbard, Kaia; Yilek, Caitlin (June 23, 2026). "Senate adopts House-passed Iran resolution in symbolic rebuke of Trump". CBS News. Tuesday's vote marked the tenth time Senate Democrats have forced a war powers vote since the war began in late February
- "The war powers resolution". US Department of State Bulletin. September 15, 1988. Retrieved July 9, 2008. The War Powers Resolution has been controversial from the day it was adopted over President Nixon's veto. Since 1973, executive officials and many Members of Congress have criticized various aspects of the law repeatedly.
- War Powers Joint Resolution, §2(b).
- Rushkoff, Bennett C. (June 1984). "A Defense of the War Powers Resolution". Yale Law Journal. 93 (7): 1333–1335.
- "War Powers Resolution: Presidential Compliance". September 25, 2012. Retrieved February 18, 2021.
- "War Powers: An Essay on John Hart Ely's War and Responsibility: Constitutional Lessons of Vietnam and Its Aftermath". Michigan Law Quarterly. 92 (6): 1364–1400. May 1994.
- "Myers v. United States, 272 U. S. 52 (1926)". When, on the merits, we find our conclusion strongly favoring the view which prevailed in the First Congress, we have no hesitation in holding that conclusion to be correct, and it therefore follows that the Tenure of Office Act of 1867, insofar as it attempted to prevent the President from removing executive officer who had been appointed by him by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, was invalid, and that subsequent legislation of the same effect was equally so.
- Kennedy, John. Profiles in Courage. Harper Collins. pp. Chapter Six Edmund G. Ross.
- Bausum, Ann (2025). White Lies How the South Lost the Civil War Then Rewrote the History. New York, NY: Roaring Brook Press. p. 57. ISBN 9781250816573.
- "The Constitution of the United States – We the People – an easy to read and use version". launchknowledge.com. September 10, 2020.
Sources
- Grimmett, Richard Z. (February 14, 2006). "CRS Report for Congress: War Powers Resolution: Presidential Compliance" (PDF). Federation of American Scientists. Retrieved September 30, 2007.
- United States Congress (November 7, 1973). "War Powers Resolution of 1973 (Public Law 93-148)". The Center for Regulatory Effectiveness. Retrieved September 30, 2007.
- United States Congress (October 31, 1998). "H.R.4655: Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338)". IraqWatch.org. Archived from the original on June 30, 2009. Retrieved September 30, 2007.
- United States Congress (September 18, 2001). "Public Law 107-40: Joint Resolution: To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States (S.J. Res. 23)" (text). United States Government Printing Office. Retrieved September 30, 2007.
- United States Congress (October 16, 2002). "Public Law 107-243: Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (H. J. Res. 114)" (text). United States Government Printing Office. Retrieved September 30, 2007.
- Kinkopf, Neil. "The Congress as Surge Protector" (PDF). American Constitution Society for Law and Policy. p. 2. Archived from the original (PDF) on July 4, 2007. Retrieved September 30, 2007. The Supreme Court has been clear and unambiguous. When Congress, acting in the vast areas of overlapping power, tells the President 'no', the President must comply.
- Doumar, Robert G. (January 8, 2003). "Hamdi v. Rumsfeld Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk (CA-02-439-2)" (PDF). United States Judiciary. Archived from the original (PDF) on February 4, 2012. Retrieved September 30, 2007.
- Young, D. Lindley (February 24, 2003). "Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Plaintiff's Appeal" (PDF). United States Judiciary. Archived from the original on February 4, 2012. Retrieved December 6, 2011.
- Library of Congress (March 12, 2012). "Research Help: War Powers" (text). United States Government Library of Congress. Retrieved May 4, 2012.
External links
English Wikisource has original text related to this article:
War Powers Resolution
.svg "Great Seal of the United States")
