64° and Sunny
Welcome to my opinion column, The Fine Print, where I dive into a law, policy, or court case and break down how it actually affects our world today, both nationally and locally. From Supreme Court rulings to Congressional legislation, I connect the dots between legal decisions and real life. As a local high school student passionate about law and current events, I’m here to make sense of the legal world, one case at a time.
It’s 1973, and U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War has finally come to an end after almost two decades of fighting. With American casualties exceeding 50,000, over $160 billion spent, and public opinion sharply in the negative, President Nixon has had no choice but to withdraw troops. Meanwhile, Congress has taken a strong bipartisan interest in ensuring the executive can no longer subvert Congressional authority through unilateral military action. After all, the U.S. Constitution explicitly gives Congress the power to declare war, even if the President remains Commander-in-Chief. It takes overriding a presidential veto, but the War Powers Resolution of 1973 is eventually passed, reasserting Congressional authority in matters of war.
As of 2026, looking back, it’s apparent that U.S. presidents have still been able to conduct numerous military operations without Congressional involvement/approval; somehow, they were able to get around the protections instilled in the War Powers Act. But while the War Powers Act has largely failed to shift the seat of power entirely to Congress, it has implemented some important restraints on the executive, and re-established the foundations of a shared authority between Congress and the presidency over war and peace. 50 years later, the Act continues to make an impact, as it provides an important opportunity for Congress to evaluate—and potentially end—the war in Iran.
The most important part of the War Powers Act lies in Section 4(a)(1), requiring first that the President report to Congress in cases where armed forces are introduced “into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances” without explicit Congressional approval. Section 5 then requires that after a period of 60 days, if Congress has neither declared war, nor extended the 60-day period by law, nor been physically unable to meet due to an armed attack on the U.S., then the President must withdraw all use of the U.S. Armed Forces within 30 additional days. As a result, the 1991 Gulf War, the war in Afghanistan, and the 2003 occupation of Iraq were all officially authorized by Congress, being major armed conflicts. However, while this 60- to 90-day time limit is significant, controversies have arisen over the language in the resolution, such as what qualifies as “hostilities” to start the 60- to 90-day clock. For example, according to Lawfare Media, in 2011, the Obama administration decided that “hostilities” doesn’t extend to situations where U.S. forces engage in a mission involving "limited exposure for U.S. troops and limited risk of serious escalation,” allowing for continued airstrikes in Libya. Other administrations have framed related military operations as being separate incidents in order to restart the clock. But overall, for military operations involving the extended deployment of ground troops into active danger, the War Powers Resolution has done its job. The question is, will today’s gridlocked and polarized Congress make use of the power it grants them?
President Trump first notified Congress of the beginning of hostilities on March 2nd, making May 1st the 60-day mark for Congress to step in and reauthorize the conflict, or end it. Some Democrats have argued that the President should never have been allowed the 60 days to begin with, since there was a lack of an “imminent threat” from Iran when the war began. The President’s justifications for invading Iran in the first place have shifted from protecting the Iranian people to weakening Iran’s military and global influence. Still, the main reason provided has been Iran’s refusal to give up their nuclear ambitions, and while this wouldn’t be the first time a stretch in definition was made, this doesn’t truly qualify as an “imminent threat,” as required by the Constitution in order to allow the President to approve use of the military without Congress. In effect, this would render all of the President’s actions in Iran thus far illegal. But even accepting the administration’s logic that the President didn’t start a war, and merely undertook “combat operations”, the 60-day time limit applies.
Opinions on U.S. involvement in Iran vary widely across parties—though overall, Pew Research Center reports that a majority of Americans disapprove of the war—but even regardless of personal opinions on Iran, it’s imperative we consider the precedent being set by the President’s actions. Each time the executive moves to broaden their power by overreaching, not only do they undermine the separation of powers vital to our democracy, but they make it easier for future executives to do the same, or more. We, the people, represented in Congress, are meant to be in control of whether or not we become engaged in a war that could impact every aspect of our daily lives (and the rest of the world), and which has already resulted in a death toll over 3,000. If the president does not need popular support in order to initiate military action, then we lose the ability to decide for ourselves what the future of the nation should look like.
It is up to Congress to take advantage of the authorization power protected by the War Powers Act and review whether or not this war is worth the cost. The longer Congress waits to call for a removal of armed forces, the harder it will be to do so, as the U.S. becomes increasingly intertwined in a conflict impacting the whole region. The Senate still has yet to vote on official approval for the war in Iran, so West Windsor residents can reach out to New Jersey Senators Cory Booker and Andy Kim to reinforce existing efforts to force a vote. And until Congress issues formal authorization, we have no business waging this war.
