.
Posted on 05/01/2026 1:11:19 PM PDT by Miami Rebel
President Donald Trump notified Congress on Friday that the conflict between the United States and Iran has been terminated, just as the 60–day War Powers Act deadline for congressional approval lapses later in the day.
“On April 7, 2026, I ordered a two-week ceasefire. The ceasefire has since been extended. There has been no exchange of fire between United States forces and Iran since April 7, 2026,” Trump wrote to Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) in a Friday letter.
Trump was asked about seeking Congressional approval earlier in the day at the White House and replied, “So many presidents, as you know, have gone and exceeded it. It’s never been used. It’s never been adhered to. And every other president considered it totally unconstitutional, and we agree with that.”
Republican Sen. Todd Young (R-ID) took a different view in remarks to reporters, saying that should the war begin again, he expects Trump to come to Congress first. Young said that “given the administration’s stated position that the Iran conflict has ceased, there should be no hostilities moving forward. I expect the administration to work with Congress on the need for an AUMF should conflict resume.”
“We must ensure that the people, through their elected representatives, weigh in on whether to send our military into combat. This should not be controversial,” he added.
Iran put forward a new proposal on Friday to end the war as negotiations continue with Pakistan facilitating talks. Trump said he was not “satisfied” with the proposal, but emphasized that Iran “wants a deal.”
Trump letter made clear he stands ready to resume hostilities with Iran at any time and argued that any future fighting does not fall under the War Powers Act’s limitations.
“The Department of War continues to update its force posture in the AOR (area of responsibility in select countries, as necessary and appropriate, to address Iranian and Iranian proxy forces’ threats and to protect the United States and its allies and partners,” he wrote in the letter, adding, “These changes are more fully outlined in the classified attachment to this letter.”
“Ongoing negotiations” is war?
Since when?
bttt
A naval blockage of another country is an act of war. The opposing country can take action against that blockade, and the country imposing the blockage can and will defend the means it is using to impose that blockade.
Hostilities between the U.S. and Iran have in fact NOT been “terminated” or even officially ended. Whether or not the U.S. is targeting places in Iran with bombs, missiles or drones, as long as the U.S. is enforcing the naval blockade on Iran the conditions of war still exist.
Republican Sen. Todd Young (R-ID)... “I expect the administration to work with Congress on the need for an AUMF should conflict resume.”
And how about that “need”, Senator? Are you ready to end the filibuster on that, or will you let the TDS-afflicted democrats subjugate American power to politics and stalemate?
Barron Trump has his own line of energy drinks!
Uh, nah!
Todd Young is a worthless senator from Indiana, not a worthless senator from Idaho.
The founders never imagined the USA having a huge standing military. The constitution does not limit the president in exercising his right in using the military.
They planned for Congress to only fund a military when needed. So the solution per the constitution is to defund the military or STFU and quit crying about the President using it.
> as long as the U.S. is enforcing the naval blockade on Iran the conditions of war still exist <
Of course. But we live in an age where we say “conflict” or “kinetic action” instead. Oh, and sometimes “police action” too.
There’s really no difference between those things and a war.
But it’s a handy way to get around the Constitution.
Hes going to blame congress for failing
An enforced blockade is war.
“But it’s a handy way to get around the Constitution.”
The “Constitutional requirement” is actually met when the Congress chooses not to act to vote to terminate hostilities by its demand. Other Presidents and Congresses have skirted the 60 day time limit by that same way in the past.
Is Congress eying the blockade?
They should be.
> The “Constitutional requirement” is actually met when the Congress chooses not to act to vote to terminate hostilities by its demand. <
I don’t quite follow. A decision by Congress not to act cannot override the plain meaning in the Constitution. Presidents cannot start wars on their own. That is the exclusive domain of Congress.
Congress has looked the other way when a president starts a quick and limited war. Jefferson’s war against the Barbary pirates is an example of that.
But Congress has also looked the other way when a president starts what is sure to be a long and expensive war (expensive in money and blood).
LBJ’s Vietnam War is an example of that. W’s Iraq adventure is another. I can only hope Trump won’t be added to that list.
.
“I don’t quite follow. A decision by Congress not to act cannot override the plain meaning in the Constitution. Presidents cannot start wars on their own. That is the exclusive domain of Congress.”
The Constitutional requirement is met, because the Congress inaction is, Constitutionally, its action. When Congress lets the 60 day limit pass, Congress has, de facto, given its consent, by default.
The War Powers Act of 1973 is not in the Constitution. It is an act of Congress which has 1/3 power in the government. An executive branch ignoring this rule is also a 1/3 power. What would the Supreme Court rule? Until then Congress can only defund the effort.
> When Congress lets the 60 day limit pass, Congress has, de facto, given its consent, by default. <
Oh, I see what you mean. You are arguing from the War Powers Resolution point of view while I’m arguing from Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.
I still think Trump has no leg to stand on. If I’m reading it correctly, the War Powers Resolution says the president must withdraw the military unless Congress gives him permission to continue.
So if Congress does nothing, the president must withdraw the military.
(Or he’s supposed to, anyway.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.