President Donald Trump is running out of time — at least according to a law that has frustrated commanders-in-chief for half a century.

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 imposes a 60-day limit on unauthorized military operations, after which a president must either obtain congressional approval or begin withdrawing forces. With U.S. strikes against Iranian targets now entering their second month, that deadline is approaching fast.

The question now is whether Trump will respect the constraint, seek Congress's blessing, or attempt an end-run around a statute that presidents of both parties have long considered constitutionally dubious.

A Watergate-Era Check on Presidential Power

The War Powers Resolution emerged from the constitutional crisis of the early 1970s, when Congress sought to reassert its authority over military deployments after years of executive overreach in Vietnam.

Passed over President Richard Nixon's veto in November 1973, the law requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to hostilities. More significantly, it mandates that those forces be withdrawn within 60 days unless Congress authorizes the operation or declares war.

A 30-day extension is possible if the president certifies that additional time is necessary for the safe removal of U.S. personnel — bringing the maximum timeline to 90 days without congressional action.

According to the New York Times, Trump's current military campaign against Iran likely triggered the resolution's clock when sustained combat operations began in late February. That would place the 60-day mark in late April, with the extended deadline falling in late May.

The Constitutional Ambiguity

Every president since Nixon has questioned the War Powers Resolution's constitutionality, arguing it infringes on the commander-in-chief's Article II powers.

No administration has ever acknowledged that the law legally binds presidential action, though most have provided the required notifications to Congress "consistent with" the resolution — careful phrasing that avoids conceding its validity.

The Supreme Court has never ruled on the statute's constitutionality, leaving the question in legal limbo for more than 50 years. That ambiguity has allowed presidents to largely ignore the 60-day limit when convenient, while Congress has proven reluctant to force a confrontation.

Previous administrations have employed creative interpretations to sidestep the deadline. President Barack Obama argued that U.S. operations in Libya in 2011 didn't constitute "hostilities" under the resolution because no American troops faced significant risk — a claim that drew bipartisan criticism from legal scholars.

Trump's Options

The Trump administration now faces several paths forward, none without political or legal complications.

The most straightforward approach would be requesting an Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) from Congress. Such resolutions have provided legal cover for military operations since the September 11 attacks, though they often grant broad authority that critics say amounts to a blank check.

A new Iran AUMF would require navigating a divided Congress where both parties harbor deep skepticism about open-ended war authorizations. Republicans would likely support the president, but Democrats have signaled they would demand strict limitations on scope, duration, and geographic boundaries.

Alternatively, Trump could argue — as the administration has hinted — that existing authorizations already cover the Iran operations. The 2001 AUMF targeting al-Qaeda and the 2002 Iraq War authorization remain on the books, though applying either to Iran would require legal contortions that even sympathetic scholars might find difficult to justify.

The third option is simply ignoring the deadline. Trump could assert that the War Powers Resolution unconstitutionally constrains executive authority and continue operations regardless of the statute's requirements.

Congressional Leverage Remains Limited

Even if Trump exceeds the 60-day window without authorization, Congress's practical remedies are constrained.

The resolution allows lawmakers to force withdrawal through a concurrent resolution, but the Supreme Court's 1983 decision in INS v. Chadha invalidated legislative vetoes of that type. Congress would instead need to pass a binding bill ordering withdrawal — which the president could veto, requiring a two-thirds supermajority to override.

Cutting off funding for the operation is another option, though historically Congress has been reluctant to deny resources to troops already deployed in combat.

"The War Powers Resolution has always been more of a political tripwire than a legal barrier," said former State Department legal adviser John Bellinger, as reported by the Times. "Presidents take it seriously as a deadline for engaging Congress, but not as an absolute constraint on their authority."

The Stakes for Trump

For Trump, the approaching deadline represents both a political challenge and an opportunity.

Seeking congressional authorization would provide democratic legitimacy for the conflict and potentially unite Republicans behind the war effort. It would also force Democrats to take a clear position, which could prove politically awkward for those who supported strikes against Iran but oppose a prolonged conflict.

Ignoring the statute, conversely, would set up a constitutional showdown that could energize Trump's base but alienate institutionalist Republicans concerned about executive overreach. It would also provide Democrats with a clear-cut process argument against the administration, regardless of the war's merits.

The administration has not publicly indicated which path it will take. White House officials have deflected questions about the War Powers Resolution, noting only that the president retains full authority to defend American interests.

A Test Case for Executive Power

Whatever Trump decides, the Iran conflict is shaping up as the most significant test of the War Powers Resolution since its passage.

Unlike previous operations conducted under the murky umbrella of post-9/11 authorizations, the Iran campaign represents a distinct conflict against a sovereign nation with no plausible connection to existing war authorizations. The 60-day deadline cannot be easily dismissed or explained away.

If Trump proceeds without congressional approval beyond the statutory window, he would be daring Congress to check his authority — a gamble that past presidents have generally won. But with war fatigue high and both parties skeptical of new Middle East entanglements, the political calculation may be different this time.

The coming weeks will reveal whether a 53-year-old statute designed to prevent another Vietnam still has any teeth — or whether the imperial presidency has grown too powerful for even explicit congressional limits to constrain.