A History of Conflicts Without Declarations
This shift in practice was evident in several major U.S. military engagements. The Korean War never received a formal declaration. In 1964, Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which allowed President Lyndon Johnson to escalate military actions in Vietnam, although the resolution was later criticized for misrepresenting events. In 1991, President George H.W. Bush received an AUMF for the Persian Gulf War. In 1999, President Bill Clinton initiated a NATO-led bombing campaign in Kosovo without congressional authorization. In each case, the balance of power tilted heavily toward the executive branch.
In response to the Vietnam War and growing concern over unchecked presidential power, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution of 1973. Its goal was, in part, “to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution” and ensure that both Congress and the president would jointly decide when to send U.S. forces into combat. The resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying troops and mandates that any military engagement must end within 60 days unless Congress grants approval or extends the mission. The resolution passed despite President Nixon’s veto.
Michael Glennon, a constitutional and international law professor at Tufts University and former legal counsel for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in the late 1970s, observed that Vietnam was a turning point. “Vietnam became the turning point for Congress because their constituents were being killed,” he said. Although the War Powers Resolution initially seemed like a meaningful check, Glennon notes that its impact has been limited. Successive administrations have often ignored its requirements or found ways to sidestep them. Presidents have frequently informed Congress of military action, but true consultation — as envisioned by the resolution — has been lacking.
Glennon argues that the Constitution “does prohibit the president from using armed force in attacking a country such as Iran unless there is an attack on the United States or the threat of an imminent attack.” He adds, “That didn’t happen, and I conclude, therefore, that this was unconstitutional.” Still, he concedes that “generally speaking,” the requirement to consult Congress under the 1973 resolution has technically been followed, though often in a limited form. “In some circumstances, Congress has been informed [ahead of time] rather than consulted. That’s not what the War Powers Resolution contemplated.”
Does the War Powers Resolution Still Matter Today?
Despite widespread disregard, the War Powers Resolution has not been completely dismissed by modern administrations. Ingber points out that even this White House has made some effort to acknowledge it. “Even this administration … is at least nodding toward those requirements. Even Secretary of Defense [Pete] Hegseth said, [the administration is acting] ‘in accordance with the War Powers Resolution.'”
Griffin believes this continued recognition of the resolution’s language matters. He says it reflects that the resolution is still widely accepted as constitutionally valid under Congress’s “necessary and proper” clause. If the attack on Iran truly remains a one-time event, Griffin says formal congressional approval may not be legally required. However, “if this turns into tit-for-tat with Iran, Trump should get an authorization. That would satisfy the War Powers Resolution — and strengthen his legal position,” he says.
The Ongoing Struggle Over War Powers
The tension between the president and Congress over control of military actions is not new — and it is unlikely to fade anytime soon. Although the Constitution draws a clear line between declaring war and commanding the military, the practical reality has evolved through history, conflict, and political maneuvering. While the War Powers Resolution was intended to restore balance, its enforcement has proven elusive. The current debate over President Trump’s strikes in Iran is only the latest episode in a long history of unresolved constitutional ambiguity.
