President Donald Trump has asserted his authority as commander-in-chief in the response to Iran, notifying Congress within the 48-hour window required by law — a notification submitted on March 2. But a separate statutory clock is now drawing attention: under the 1973 War Powers Resolution, an overseas military engagement cannot continue more than 60 days without congressional authorization. That 60-day period ends on May 1. If no diplomatic solution is in place by then, the administration must take additional steps to lawfully continue U.S. military operations.
The War Powers Resolution was enacted after Vietnam to clarify the balance between presidential conduct of military operations and Congress’s power to declare war. While the Constitution names the president commander-in-chief, it vests the power to declare war in Congress. The 1973 law requires the president to consult Congress “in every possible instance” before deploying forces into hostilities and to report when forces are committed. Richard Nixon vetoed the statute, but Congress overrode him.
Formal declarations of war have become rare — the last congressional declaration was in 1942 — so presidents have often relied on the War Powers Resolution’s ambiguous terms or on other authorizations to justify military actions, preserving executive flexibility while offering some congressional oversight.
The statute allows a one-time 30-day extension beyond the initial 60 days, normally to permit an orderly withdrawal. Analysts, including Stormy-Annika Mildner of Aspen Institute Germany, regard that extension as the most likely approach: the White House could claim meaningful progress toward a ceasefire and argue the extra month is needed to wind down operations. That argument would be harder to sustain if fighting intensifies — for example, in the Strait of Hormuz — or if ceasefire violations continue unabated.
There is also precedent for presidents disputing the 60-day trigger. In 2011, Barack Obama argued that the UN-authorized air campaign in Libya did not invoke the War Powers Resolution because it lacked sustained combat and ground forces. The current administration could make a similar legal case.
Since early March, Congress has held five votes intended to constrain the administration’s actions; all failed, reflecting unified Republican control of both chambers, although some votes were close. Beyond symbolic resolutions, lawmakers have limited practical mechanisms to halt operations. Cutting military funding could force an end in principle, but doing so would risk severe political and institutional backlash by depriving troops of resources.
The approaching May 1 deadline may shift those calculations. A number of Republicans have hinted they might change course; Rep. John Curtis of Utah has said he will not support continuing military action past the 60-day limit without congressional approval. Still, many Republicans prefer opposing measures that would explicitly authorize continued action, because such votes would carry clear responsibility for the costs, duration and risks — a politically perilous position with midterm elections looming.
The midterms on November 3 contest all 435 House seats and 35 Senate seats. Polling suggests Republicans could lose control of one or both chambers, and vulnerable incumbents are attentive to public sentiment. At the same time, the conflict has contributed to higher fuel prices and broader complaints about the cost of living, creating pressure among parts of the president’s base to de-escalate.
Faced with those dynamics, the administration has incentives to secure a face-saving outcome before the midterms — whether by invoking the 30-day withdrawal extension, arguing the 60-day limit does not apply, or seeking some form of congressional authorization. How lawmakers respond after May 1 will determine the legal and political footing for any continued U.S. military action.
This article was originally written in German.