US President Donald Trump is heading toward a legal deadline that could force him to end US military involvement linked to Iran, unless Congress steps in to approve it. According to a report by John Hart of the Australian National University, published via The Conversation, US law gives presidents only a limited window to carry out military action without congressional approval. That window is now close to closing.
Trump faces deadline to end Iran conflict under US law
Under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, a president can send US forces into hostilities without Congress approving it, only for 60 days. After that, Congress must either formally approve the action, extend the timeline, or the president is required to end it.
Even though there is currently a ceasefire between the US and Iran, the law still applies to ongoing military activity, including naval deployments and ships involved in enforcing a blockade of Iranian ports, resulting in the closure of the Strait of Hormuz.
What the war powers law actually means
The War Powers Resolution was passed in 1973 after the Vietnam War era, when many in Congress felt presidents had taken too much control over decisions to go to war. The law was meant to restore balance. It required the president to inform Congress within 48 hours of sending troops into conflict and explain the legal basis, purpose, and expected duration of the mission.
Once that report is sent, a 60-day countdown begins. If Congress does nothing during that time, the military operation must stop unless lawmakers approve or extend it.
Trump reportedly submitted his notice on March 2, which means the deadline falls on May 1. So far, Congress has not approved or formally authorised the conflict. Some Republican lawmakers have blocked Democratic efforts to end or limit the operation, but no official authorisation has passed.
What happens if the deadline is ignored?
If the May 1 deadline passes without congressional approval, the law says US military action must stop. But in practice, things are not so simple.
The War Powers Resolution has often been treated loosely by presidents over the decades. Many have argued that the law is vague, full of exceptions, and not always enforceable.
In past cases, presidents have sometimes continued military operations anyway, arguing that the situation does not legally count as “hostilities,” or that the law itself is unconstitutional.
Trump is expected to take a similar position if the deadline arrives. According to Hart’s analysis, he may simply refuse to withdraw forces and instead challenge the law in court.
Legal grey areas
Even if the deadline is ignored, the law leaves room for argument. In past cases, presidents have claimed that certain military actions did not count as full “hostilities,” which would mean the 60-day rule does not apply in the same way.
A similar argument was made during US operations in Libya in 2011 under President Barack Obama.
Trump’s own March 2 letter to Congress also avoided direct reliance on the War Powers Resolution. Instead, he said he was acting under his constitutional role as Commander in Chief, and only said his actions were “consistent with” the law.
What comes next
If US troops remain involved after May 1, the War Powers Resolution could suddenly become a major political and legal battleground again. Congress could attempt legal challenges, and lawsuits are already being discussed by Democrats, although courts have historically been reluctant to intervene in war powers disputes.
At the same time, Trump may argue that the situation does not legally count as active war under the law, or that the law itself cannot restrict presidential authority in this way. In the past, Congress and the White House have usually reached informal compromises when conflicts like this arise.
If the deadline is crossed without action, the War Powers Resolution, often seen as weak or ignored, may suddenly become one of the most important legal tests of presidential power in decades.