Several Republicans defending President Donald Trump’s military actions in Iran say the president has broad constitutional authority to conduct overseas operations and argue a growing fight over the War Powers Resolution could ultimately land before the Supreme Court.
The comments come after House Republicans last week pulled a vote on a resolution aimed at limiting Trump’s war powers in Iran after GOP leaders appeared to lack enough support to defeat the Democratic-led measure, delaying consideration until next month.
“Every administration has held that parts of the War Powers Resolution are unconstitutional since the law’s enactment in 1973,” White House spokesperson Anna Kelly told Newsweek on Thursday.
The statement continued, “President Trump will continue to protect our national security using his constitutional authority as Commander-in-Chief while being transparent with Congress.”
War Powers resolutions are politically significant because they often serve as a public test of congressional support for a conflict and can expose divisions within both parties over presidential authority, foreign policy and the scope of U.S. military involvement abroad.
Even when they fail, war powers resolutions can force debate and recorded votes on military operations, placing lawmakers on the record and increasing political pressure on the White House.
Newsweek has reached out to several Republicans and the White House on the matter via email on Thursday.
What Is The War Powers Resolution?
The 1973 War Powers Resolution allows Congress to direct the president to withdraw U.S. forces from hostilities not authorized by lawmakers. Presidents of both parties have challenged limits on executive war powers, but the law remains one of Congress’ primary checks on unilateral military action.
It also requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of introducing U.S. forces into hostilities and limits unauthorized military action to 60 days.
Trump did not seek congressional authorization before launching military strikes against Iran in February, and many Democrats argued the action was unconstitutional. The resolution prohibits unauthorized conflict to continue past 60 days, with a 30-day withdrawal period. Trump initiated the strikes on Iran on February 28, and informed Congress on March 2. There is currently a ceasefire in place amid talks, however, the U.S. has struck targets in Iran this week.
Democrats have repeatedly sought to advance war powers resolutions aimed at limiting presidential military authority, though such efforts have failed to clear both chambers of Congress, where Republicans hold majorities in the House and Senate.
The resolution exposed divisions within the Republican Party, with Senators Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine and Rand Paul of Kentucky backing a Democratic-led measure in May.
Later, Republican Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, voted alongside Democrats to force the Iran War Powers debate. Cassidy was fresh off a primary loss when he cast his vote, having lost his seat to a Trump-backed Representative Julia Letlow and state Treasurer John Fleming, who will face off in a runoff election.
Cassidy’s support was enough to help those in favor of the resolution, which has seen multiple attempts, reach a majority. However, the House postponed a vote on the matter.
What Have Republicans Said About War Powers?
Top Trump officials have brushed off the War Powers Resolution, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio who told reporters during a May briefing, “The War Powers Act is unconstitutional, 100 percent.” He continued, “Now we comply with it in terms of, like, notification because we want to preserve good relations with Congress, right? And we do that.”
He went on to echo a White House statement that the Trump administration’s position isn’t unique, telling reporters, it “has been the position of every single presidential administration since the day that law passed, as an infringement on the president’s constitutional powers.”
According to the Congressional Research Service, lawmakers have filed eight lawsuits aimed at forcing presidents to comply with the War Powers Resolution, though courts have largely treated the disputes as political matters outside judicial review.
In response to a request for comment from Newsweek, The White House said: “The President can act consistent with the will of Congress as expressed in the War Powers Resolution (or any other statute for that matter) without thereby conceding the WPR is constitutional.”
The statement continued, “Since the WPR was first enacted in the 1970s, Presidents have frequently raised concerns about its constitutionality while simultaneously acting consistent with it for the sake of a good relationship with Congress. That does not mean that any such administration felt that it is bound by the WPR. Nor does it stop the President from ordering a different course when he deems necessary to protect national security.”
Representative Brian Mast, a Florida Republican, suggested that the constitutionality of the resolution may be tried in court, telling PunchBowl News, “I don’t think the constitutionality of that has been tested.” The chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee continued, “I think it will probably be tested.”
“They may challenge it right over there in the Supreme Court,” Representative Michael McCaul, a Texas Republican, told PunchBowl News. “Every president since [Vietnam] has always at least verbally challenged the constitutionality of it. And I wouldn’t be surprised if this administration did that.”
Other cabinet officials such as Vice President JD Vance, who told reporters in January that the War Powers resolution is “fundamentally a fake and unconstitutional law.” He continued that “it’s not going to change anything about how we conduct foreign policy over the next couple of weeks or over the next couple of months.”
What Would Happen if the War Resolutions Went To The Supreme Court?
If the administration did try to bring a lawsuit over the War Powers Resolution to the Supreme Court, the court would first have to decide whether to hear the case. Historically, courts have often avoided ruling on War Powers Resolution disputes by saying they are political questions better resolved by Congress and the president, or by finding lawmakers lacked standing to sue.
“Today, however, any court challenge to Trump’s waging war in Iran without congressional approval surely would be dismissed as a so-called ‘political question’; that is, as better suited for the executive or legislative branches and therefore not for courts to decide upon,” Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California, Berkeley School of Law said in a May column.
If the Court did take up the issue, the case could become one of the most significant rulings on presidential military authority in decades.
A decision siding with Congress could strengthen lawmakers’ ability to limit or end military operations not unauthorized by Congress and reinforce the 60-day withdrawal requirement provision.
A ruling favoring the president could significantly expand executive authority over military action and weaken Congress’ ability to restrain presidents during overseas conflicts.
