As Operation Epic Fury (referred to as Operation Roaring Lion by Israel) proceeds, a 1973 law intended to limit presidential war powers has resurfaced in a constitutional debate.
President Donald Trump authorized the sweeping campaign against Iran without a prior vote of Congress, prompting renewed debate over the War Powers Resolution — often called the War Powers Act — and whether it meaningfully restrains a commander in chief.
Enacted in November 1973 over President Richard Nixon’s veto, the War Powers Resolution was designed to “insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities,” according to a Congressional Research Service summary published in December 2025.
Lawmakers passed it after the Vietnam War to reassert Congress’s authority under Article I of the Constitution to declare war.
Under the law, the President must notify Congress within 48 hours of introducing U.S. armed forces into “hostilities… or situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicat[ed].”
Once triggered, a 60-day clock begins.
Unless Congress declares war, provides specific authorization, or extends the period, the President is required to terminate the use of force, with a possible 30-day extension for safe withdrawal.
The statute also provides expedited procedures for Congress to vote on measures authorizing or directing the removal of forces.
The White House has framed the Iran strikes as a lawful response to an urgent threat.
In a statement announcing the operation, the administration said Trump authorized “Operation Epic Fury — a precise, overwhelming military campaign to eliminate the imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime.” The statement described the action as “exhaustive diplomatic efforts” and cited decades of Iranian hostility.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told reporters Monday that the mission is “laser-focused” and not intended to become an “endless” war, according to prior reporting by The Dallas Express.
Critics argue the Constitution requires more.
A March 2 analysis by attorneys from the left-leaning Brennan Center for Justice contends the strikes are unconstitutional absent congressional authorization or a sudden attack on the United States. The piece argues that the framers vested the power to declare war in Congress to prevent “unaccountable war-making” and says there was no imminent threat that would justify unilateral action under the President’s authority to repel sudden attacks.
The constitutional fight, however, has rarely been resolved in court. The U.S. Supreme Court has never issued a ruling on the War Powers Resolution’s constitutionality.
In INS v. Chadha, the justices struck down legislative vetoes as violating constitutional requirements of bicameral passage and presentment to the President, undercutting a key enforcement mechanism in the war powers law that allowed Congress to direct troop withdrawals by concurrent resolution.
Lower courts have repeatedly declined to referee disputes between Congress and the White House over military actions.
In Campbell v. Clinton, a challenge to then-President Bill Clinton’s air campaign in Kosovo was dismissed for lack of standing. Earlier cases involving deployments to El Salvador and the 1990 Gulf War buildup were dismissed on procedural grounds such as ripeness or the political question doctrine.
As a result, the War Powers Resolution has remained a highly debated political framework, not as a judicially enforceable rule.
Presidents of both parties have typically submitted reports “consistent with” the statute while disputing whether particular operations constitute “hostilities” that trigger the 60-day clock.
Democrat President Jimmy Carter notified Congress of the attempt to save American hostages in Iran in 1980, and GOP President Ronald Reagan notified Congress of American airstrikes in Libya in 1986.
There have been conflicting accounts on the extent to which Congress was notified; however, some reports indicate that Secretary of State Marco Rubio informed at least some legislators before the latest strikes on Iran.
Congress, for its part, has rarely used its power of the purse or expedited procedures to force a withdrawal.
Lawmakers are now weighing whether to invoke those procedures in response to the Iran campaign. Whether Congress asserts its authority — or again defers to the executive — could determine not only the trajectory of the current conflict but also the future balance of war powers between the branches.