Congressional frustration with the fluctuating military engagement against Iran is mounting, but a new legislative attempt to rein in the president's war-making authority appears destined to fail.
Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.) has introduced a bill to amend the 1973 War Powers Resolution, aiming to force the executive branch to comply with its requirements. The move comes after President Trump sent conflicting notifications to Congress—first declaring an end to "hostilities" with Iran in May, then announcing their resumption in July. However, the proposal suffers from three fundamental flaws: it lacks political support, it is legally ambiguous, and it fails to address the statute's central weakness.
A Bill Without Backing
Larson's legislation has no co-sponsors and was introduced late in the legislative calendar, making passage highly unlikely. Even if it were to gain traction, legal experts argue it would not achieve its intended effect.
The War Powers Resolution, enacted over President Nixon's veto, was designed to ensure congressional consultation and oversight whenever U.S. forces are introduced into "hostilities." It requires the president to notify Congress and mandates withdrawal after 60 days unless Congress authorizes continued action. Yet presidents from both parties have consistently found ways to circumvent these provisions.
Larson's bill would prohibit federal spending on any military engagement that "contravenes" the War Powers Resolution. But the language is so vague that it could be interpreted in two conflicting ways, neither of which would meaningfully constrain the commander-in-chief.
Legal Ambiguity
Under the "last antecedent rule," the phrase "in contravention of the requirements of" might apply only to the "continued use" of forces, leaving the initial introduction unqualified. Alternatively, under the "series-qualifier canon," the modifier could apply to both introduction and continued use—but that still doesn't solve the underlying problem: the term "hostilities" remains undefined.
Presidents have exploited this ambiguity for decades. President Obama refused to label the Libya bombing campaign as "hostilities," and President Trump has reset the 60-day clock by declaring one period of hostilities over and starting another. Every president since Nixon has argued the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional, and most have found creative ways to bypass it—from Reagan in Lebanon to Clinton in Kosovo, and from Obama in Syria to Biden in Yemen.
Larson's bill would not change this dynamic. If a president can unilaterally decide whether a conflict constitutes "hostilities" and when they end, a spending restriction tied to that undefined term is toothless. As Bryce Poole, a senior legal fellow at Advancing American Freedom, notes, "It is unlikely that any president would ever concede that a given conflict is in contravention of the War Powers Resolution."
The power of the purse remains Congress's strongest tool, but Larson's measure fails to wield it effectively. Grafting amendments onto a broken law won't fix it. A more fundamental rewrite—one that clearly defines "hostilities" and limits presidential discretion—is needed. Until then, the executive branch will continue to operate with impunity, and Congress's oversight role will remain largely symbolic.
