Frustration is boiling over among Republicans on Capitol Hill as Democrats continue forcing votes tied to U.S. military operations involving Iran.
Some GOP lawmakers are now openly discussing a potential Supreme Court showdown over the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution itself.
Several Republicans have recently floated the possibility that President Donald Trump’s administration could eventually challenge the 1973 law in court, arguing it improperly limits presidential authority as commander in chief.
Advertisement
“I don’t think the constitutionality of that has been tested,” Rep. Brian Mast (R-Fla.), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said during discussions surrounding the Iran conflict.
“I think it will probably be tested,” Mast added.
The War Powers Resolution was passed by Congress in 1973 following the Vietnam War in an effort to limit unilateral military action by presidents.
The law requires presidents to notify Congress when deploying U.S. armed forces into hostilities and generally limits military operations without congressional authorization to 60 days.
But many Republicans — and multiple administrations from both parties — have long argued the law infringes on the president’s constitutional powers.
Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas) suggested a court fight may eventually become unavoidable.
“They may challenge it right over there in the Supreme Court,” McCaul said.
Advertisement
“Every president since [Vietnam] has always at least verbally challenged the constitutionality of it. And I wouldn’t be surprised if this administration did that,” he added.
The comments come amid mounting clashes between Congress and the White House over military action involving Iran.
Democrats have repeatedly pushed war powers resolutions aimed at limiting Trump’s authority to conduct military operations without explicit congressional approval.
And for the first time earlier this month, Democrats appeared to gain meaningful traction.
The Senate voted to advance an Iran-related war powers resolution with support from four Republicans, signaling growing bipartisan concern about unchecked executive military authority.
Additional votes are expected after lawmakers return from recess.
Meanwhile, House leadership recently abandoned a planned vote that appeared likely to pass after Republican attendance issues complicated the effort.
A White House official defended the administration’s position while acknowledging the long-running constitutional dispute surrounding the law.
“Administrations from both parties have abided by the statute without conceding its constitutionality to ensure good relationships with Congress,” the official said.
“That does not mean that any such administration felt that it is bound by the [law],” the official added.
“Nor does it stop the president from ordering a different course when he deems necessary to protect national security.”
White House spokesperson Anna Kelly insisted the administration remains compliant with the statute while also emphasizing Trump’s authority.
She said Operation Epic Fury — the administration’s military campaign involving Iran — had “concluded” and that the administration was in “full compliance” with the War Powers Resolution.
That statement came despite continued U.S. strikes and an ongoing naval blockade involving Iranian ports.
Senior administration officials have also become increasingly blunt about their view of the law.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio called the War Powers Resolution “unconstitutional, 100 percent.”
Vice President J.D. Vance similarly blasted the statute.
“Fundamentally a fake and unconstitutional law,” Vance said.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth also argued Trump already possesses all necessary constitutional authority to resume military operations involving Iran without congressional approval.
Some Republicans are not even waiting for a court challenge.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) argued Trump should simply ignore the statute entirely if necessary, Punchbowl News reported.
Graham said Congress retains the power of the purse and could cut off funding if lawmakers oppose military action.
“I’ve got no problem with any member of Congress trying to defund a military operation they think is bad,” Graham said.
“I’ve got a ton of problems with 535 of us trying to be commander in chief every 60 days,” he added.
This article may contain commentary which reflects the author’s opinion.
