Editing War Powers Resolution (section)

==History==

===Background and passage===

During the [[Vietnam War]], the United States found itself involved for many years in situations of intense conflict without a declaration of war. Many members of Congress became concerned with the erosion of congressional authority to decide when the United States should become involved in a war or the use of armed forces that might lead to war. It was prompted by news leaking out that President Nixon conducted [[Operation Menu|secret bombings of Cambodia]] during the Vietnam War without notifying Congress.<ref name=HistoryChannel>{{cite web|url=https://www.history.com/.amp/topics/vietnam-war/war-powers-act|title=War Powers Act|date=30 November 2017}}</ref> The War Powers Resolution bill was a contest between Congress and the Presidency on who has specific rights regarding wartime authorities. According to the committee report “The issue concerns the "twilight zone" of concurrent authority which the Founding Fathers gave the Congress and the President over the war powers of the National Government.” <ref>{{Cite web |title=Shibboleth Authentication Request |url=https://login.huaryu.kl.oakland.edu/login?qurl=https://li.proquest.com%2flegislativeinsight%2fdocview%3fid%3dHRG-1973-FOA-0039%26p%3d1929C02FC6C%26uid%3d1005 |access-date=2024-11-16 |website=login.huaryu.kl.oakland.edu}}</ref>

President Nixon's opposition to the bill was noted by Representative Gerald R. Ford, who read aloud a telegram from the President in which Nixon warned he would veto the legislation due to its "dangerous and unconstitutional restrictions."<ref>{{Cite web |title=Preview unavailable - ProQuest |url=https://www.proquest.com/docview/119841442 |access-date=2024-11-16 |website=www.proquest.com |id={{ProQuest|119841442}} |language=en}}</ref> The War Powers Resolution was passed by both the [[United States House of Representatives|House of Representatives]] and [[United States Senate|Senate]] but was vetoed by President [[Richard Nixon]].<ref name=ConCenter>{{cite web| url=https://constitutioncenter.org/amp/blog/when-congress-once-used-its-powers-to-declare-war|title=When Congress last used its powers to declare war|date=8 December 2018|access-date=15 October 2019}}</ref><ref name=HistoryChannel /> By a two-thirds vote in each house, Congress [[Veto override|overrode]] the veto and enacted the joint resolution into law on November 7, 1973.<ref name=ConCenter />

=== Provisions ===
The President is to submit a report in writing at least 48 hours prior to notifying the Speaker of the House and the President pro tempore of the Senate the reasons necessary for U.S. armed forces being introduced, the constitutional and legislative right in which such introduction took place, and the estimated scope and length of the involvement in the conflict. The President is to routinely consult with Congress until U.S. armed forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed. Reports are given to the House Committee of Foreign Affairs and to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.<ref>{{Cite web |title=H.J.Res.542 - Joint resolution concerning the war powers of Congress and the President. | date=November 7, 1973 |url=https://www.congress.gov/bill/93rd-congress/house-joint-resolution/542}}</ref>

===Implementation, 1993–2002===
With the War Powers Resolution’s passing, both the deployment of troops to conflict and the stationing of troops past 60 days would now need prior congressional approval. The president would now need to routinely consult with Congress for the duration of the conflict.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Fisher |first1=Louis |last2=Adler |first2=David Gray |date=1998-03-01 |title=The War Powers Resolution: Time to Say Goodbye |url=https://academic.oup.com/psq/article/113/1/1/6945507 |journal=Political Science Quarterly |language=en |volume=113 |issue=1 |pages=1–20 |doi=10.2307/2657648 |jstor=2657648 |issn=0032-3195|url-access=subscription }}</ref> The resolution is considered to be a critically important bill in reestablishing congressional capabilities.<ref>{{Cite journal |title=The War Powers Resolution: Time to Say Goodbye |url=https://academic.oup.com/psq/article-abstract/113/1/1/6945507?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=false |access-date=2024-11-16 |journal=Political Science Quarterly| date=March 1998 | volume=113 | issue=1 | pages=1–20 | doi=10.2307/2657648 | jstor=2657648 | last1=Fisher | first1=Louis | last2=Adler | first2=David Gray | url-access=subscription }}</ref> Presidents have submitted 130<ref name="ReferenceB">U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. War Powers Resolution: Presidential Compliance. Washington: The Service, 2011 (RL33532), Summary.</ref> reports to Congress as a result of the War Powers Resolution, although only one (the [[Mayagüez incident|''Mayagüez'' incident]]) cited Section 4(a)(1) and specifically stated that forces had been introduced into hostilities or imminent danger.

Congress invoked the War Powers Resolution in the [[Multinational Force in Lebanon]] Act (P.L. 98-119), which authorized the [[United States Marine Corps|Marines]] to remain in [[Lebanese Civil War|Lebanon]] for 18 months during 1982 and 1983. In addition, the [[Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 1991]] ({{USPL|102|1}}), which authorized United States combat operations against Iraqi forces during the 1991 [[Gulf War]], stated that it constituted specific statutory authorization within the meaning of the War Powers Resolution.

The Reagan Administration harbored extensive reservations about the War Powers Resolution’s constitutionality and efficacy. Legal Advisor to the State Department Abraham Sofaer argued that the WPR’s deadlines “creates unwise limitations on Presidential authority to deploy U.S. forces in the interests of U.S. national security” and that “the President’s constitutional authority cannot in any case even be impermissibly infringed by statute.”<ref>{{Cite report  
 |author=U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Arms Control, International Security and Science of the Committee on Foreign Affairs  
 |title=War Powers, Libya, and State-Sponsored Terrorism: Hearings before the Subcommittee on Arms Control, International Security and Science of the Committee on Foreign Affairs  
 |date=1986  
 |publisher=U.S. Government Printing Office  
 |location=Washington, D.C.  
 |pages=5–60, 230–240  
}}  
</ref> More specifically, the Administration sought to make clear that the resolution should not be applied to anti-terrorist operations, a use of force, according to Sofaer, “that is more analogous to law enforcement activity by policy in the domestic context than it is to the “hostilities” between states.”<ref>Ibid., p. 230–240.</ref>

On November 9, 1993, the House used a section of the War Powers Resolution to state that U.S. forces should be withdrawn from [[History of Somalia#Somali Civil War|Somalia]] by March 31, 1994;{{citation needed|date=June 2019}} Congress had already taken this action in appropriations legislation. More recently, under [[Bill Clinton|President Clinton]], war powers were at issue in [[Yugoslav Wars|former Yugoslavia]], [[Bosnian War|Bosnia]], [[Kosovo War|Kosovo]], [[Bombing of Iraq (December 1998)|Iraq]], and [[Operation Uphold Democracy|Haiti]], and under President [[George W. Bush]] in responding to terrorist attacks against the U.S. after [[September 11 attacks|September 11, 2001]]. "[I]n 1999, President Clinton kept the [[1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia|bombing campaign in Kosovo]] going for more than two weeks after the 60-day deadline had passed. Even then, however, the Clinton legal team opined that its actions were consistent with the War Powers Resolution because Congress had approved a bill funding the operation, which they argued constituted implicit authorization. That theory was controversial because the War Powers Resolution specifically says that such funding does not constitute authorization."<ref name="thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com">[[Charlie Savage (author)|Savage, Charlie]] (2011-04-01) [http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/01/clock-ticking-on-war-powers-resolution/ Clock Ticking on War Powers Resolution], ''[[The New York Times]]'' The Caucus Blog</ref> Clinton's actions in Kosovo were challenged by a member of Congress as a violation of the War Powers Resolution in the D.C. Circuit case ''[[Campbell v. Clinton]]'', but the court found the issue was a [[Justiciability|non-justiciable]] [[political question]].<ref>{{Citation|title=Campbell v. Clinton|date=February 18, 2000|url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2803714193388437750&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr|volume=203|pages=19|access-date=2017-02-23}}</ref> It was also accepted that because Clinton had withdrawn from the region 12 days prior the 90-day required deadline, he had managed to comply with the act.<ref name="online.wsj.com">[https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323932604579049933342339844 How War Powers, Congressional Action have Intersected Over Time] ''[[The Wall Street Journal]]'' (2013-09-02)</ref>

After the 1991 [[Gulf War]], the use of force to obtain Iraqi compliance with [[United Nations]] resolutions, particularly through enforcement of [[Iraqi no-fly zones]], remained a war powers issue. In October 2002 Congress enacted the [[Iraq Resolution|Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq]] {{USStatute|107|243}}, which authorized President [[George W. Bush]] to use force as necessary to defend the United States against Iraq and enforce relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions.<ref name="PL107-243">{{USPL|107|243}}</ref> This was in addition to the [[Authorization for Use of Military Force of 2001]].

===Libya, 2011===
{{See also|2011 military intervention in Libya}}
Secretary of State [[Hillary Clinton]] testified to congress in March 2011 that the Obama administration did not need [[Declaration of war by the United States|congressional authorization]] for its [[2011 military intervention in Libya|military intervention in Libya]] or for further decisions about it, despite congressional objections from members of both parties that the administration was violating the War Powers Resolution.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://edition.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/03/30/congress.libya.briefing/ |title=Congress members grill administration officials on Libya mission |publisher=CNN |date=March 31, 2011}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |url=https://thehill.com/homenews/house/87124-white-house-briefing-changes-few-minds-on-libya-involvement/ |title=White House briefing changes few minds on Libya involvement |work=[[The Hill (newspaper)|The Hill]] |author=Lillis, Mike |date=March 30, 2011|display-authors=etal}}</ref>  During that classified briefing, she reportedly indicated that the administration would sidestep the Resolution's provision regarding a 60-day limit on unauthorized military actions.<ref>{{Cite news |url=http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/clinton-to-congress-obama-would-ignore-your-war-resolutions?ref=fpblg |title=Clinton To Congress: Obama Would Ignore Your War Resolutions |publisher=Talking Points Memo |author=Crabtree, Susan |date=March 30, 2011}}</ref>  Months later, she stated that, with respect to the military operation in Libya, the United States was still flying a quarter of the [[sorties]], and the ''[[New York Times]]'' reported that, while many presidents had bypassed other sections of the War Powers Resolution, there was little precedent for exceeding the 60-day statutory limit on unauthorized military actions – a limit which the Justice Department had said in 1980 was constitutional.<ref>{{Cite news |url=http://web.nytimes.com/2011/05/26/world/middleeast/26powers.html |title=Libya Effort Is Called Violation of War Act |work=The New York Times |author=Charlie Savage |date=May 26, 2011 |page=A8 }}{{Dead link|date=June 2021 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/18/world/africa/18powers.html |title=2 Top Lawyers Lost to Obama in Libya War Policy Debate |work=The New York Times |last=Savage |first=Charlie |date=June 18, 2011 |page=A1 |url-access=limited}}</ref> The State Department publicly took the position in June 2011 that there was no "hostility" in Libya within the meaning of the War Powers Resolution, contrary to legal interpretations in 2011 by the [[United States Department of Defense|Department of Defense]] and the [[Office of Legal Counsel|Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel]].<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/president-overruled-2-key-lawyers-on-debate-over-libya-war-policy/ |title=President overruled 2 key lawyers on debate over Libya war policy |author=Savage, Charlie |date=June 18, 2011 |work=The Seattle Times}}</ref><ref name=Cosgrove>Cosgrove, Maureen [http://jurist.org/paperchase/2011/06/state-department-legal-adviser-obama-acting-lawfully-in-libya.php "State Department legal adviser: Obama acting lawfully in Libya"], [[JURIST]] (June 28, 2011).</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Defining War in an Ill-Defined World|first1=Nikolas|last1=Gvosdev|first2=Andrew|last2=Stigler|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/29/opinion/29iht-edgvosdev29.html|work=[[The New York Times]]|date=June 28, 2011|department=Opinion|access-date=February 13, 2020|url-access=limited}}</ref>

May 20, 2011, marked the 60th day of [[Operation Odyssey Dawn|US combat in Libya]] (as part of the UN resolution) but the deadline arrived without President Obama seeking specific authorization from the US Congress.<ref name="Libya War Deadline Arrives">[https://www.foxnews.com/politics/lawmakers-demand-explanation-from-white-house-as-libya-war-deadline-arrives Libya War Deadline Arrives] Fox News</ref> President Obama notified Congress that no authorization was needed,<ref name="blogs.abcnews.com">[http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/05/white-house-on-war-powers-deadline-limited-us-role-in-libya-means-no-need-to-get-congressional-autho.html "White House on War Powers Deadline: 'Limited' US Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorization"], ABC News, May 20, 2011 {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170916220714/http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/05/white-house-on-war-powers-deadline-limited-us-role-in-libya-means-no-need-to-get-congressional-autho.html |date=September 16, 2017 }}</ref> since the US leadership had been transferred to NATO,<ref name="BBC News">{{cite news|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12876696|publisher=BBC News|title=Libya: Nato assumes control of military operation|date=March 27, 2011}}</ref> and since US involvement was somewhat "limited". In fact, as of April 28, 2011, the US had conducted 75 percent of all aerial refueling sorties, supplied 70 percent of the operation's intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, and contributed 24 percent of the total aircraft used in the operation.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://nato.usmission.gov/issues/our_issues/libya/libya-fact-sheet2/libya-fact-sheet.html |title=Libya Fact Sheet &#124; NATO - United States Mission |access-date=2015-10-04 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151005100331/http://nato.usmission.gov/issues/our_issues/libya/libya-fact-sheet2/libya-fact-sheet.html |archive-date=October 5, 2015 |df=mdy-all}}</ref> By September, the US had conducted 26 percent of all military sorties, contributing more resources to Operation Unified Protector than any other NATO country.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://nato.usmission.gov/libya-oup-90811.html |title=Remarks to the Press on Libya and Operation Unified Protector &#124; United States Mission to NATO |access-date=2015-10-04 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151016025619/http://nato.usmission.gov/libya-oup-90811.html |archive-date=October 16, 2015 |df=mdy-all}}</ref> The State Department requested (but never received) express congressional authorization.<ref name=Cosgrove /><ref>{{Cite book |author=Owen, Robert |title=Precision and Purpose: Airpower in the Libyan Civil War |editor=Karl Mueller |page=105|publisher=Rand Corporation |year=2015 |chapter=The U.S. Experience: National Strategy and Campaign Support|isbn=9780833088079 |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=7RFDCgAAQBAJ&pg=PT105}}</ref>

On Friday, June 3, 2011, the US House of Representatives voted to rebuke President Obama for maintaining an American presence in the NATO operations in Libya, which they considered a violation of the War Powers Resolution.<ref name="washingtontimes.com">Dinan, Stephen, [http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jun/3/bipartisan-congress-rebuffs-obama-libya-mission/ "Bipartisan Congress rebuffs Obama on Libya mission"]. ''The Washington Times'', Saturday, June 4, 2011</ref><ref name="Steinhauer">{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/04/world/africa/04policy.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all|work=The New York Times|first=Jennifer|last=Steinhauer|title=House Rebukes Obama for Continuing Libyan Mission Without Its Consent|date=June 3, 2011}}</ref>  In ''The New York Times'', an opinion piece by [[Yale Law School|Yale]] Law Professor [[Bruce Ackerman]] stated that Obama's position "lacks a solid legal foundation. And by adopting it, the White House has shattered the traditional legal process the executive branch has developed to sustain the rule of law over the past 75 years."<ref>Ackerman, Bruce. [https://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/21/opinion/21Ackerman.html?_r=0 "Legal Acrobatics, Illegal War"], ''[[The New York Times]]'' (June 21, 2011). Page A27.</ref>

===Syria, 2012–2017===
{{See also|2017 Shayrat missile strike|Syrian Train and Equip Program|Timber Sycamore}}
In late 2012 or early 2013, at the direction of U.S. President [[Barack Obama]], the [[Central Intelligence Agency]] (CIA) was put in charge of [[Timber Sycamore]], a covert program to arm and train the rebels who were fighting against [[Syria]]n [[President of Syria|President]] [[Bashar al-Assad]],<ref>{{cite news|url= https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-to-give-some-syria-rebels-ability-to-call-airstrikes-1424208053 |title=U.S. to Give Some Syria Rebels Ability to Call Airstrikes |work= The Wall Street Journal |date=February 17, 2015 |access-date=February 17, 2015 |last1=Barnes|first1=Julian E. |last2=Entous |first2=Adam |url-access=subscription}}</ref> while the State Department supplied the [[Free Syrian Army]] with non-lethal aid. Following the [[use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Civil War]] on several occasions, including the [[Ghouta chemical attack]] on 21 August 2013, Obama asked Congress for authorization to use military force in Syria, which Congress rejected. Instead, Congress passed a bill that specified that the Defense Secretary was authorized "...to provide assistance, including training, equipment, supplies, and sustainment, to appropriately vetted elements of the Syrian opposition and other appropriately vetted Syrian groups and individuals...." The bill specifically prohibited the introduction of U.S. troops or other U.S. forces into hostilities. The bill said: "Nothing in this section shall be construed to constitute a specific statutory authorization for the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein hostilities are clearly indicated by the circumstances."<ref>{{USPL|113|164}}</ref>

In spite of the prohibition, Obama, and later U.S. President [[Donald Trump]], introduced ground forces into Syria, and the United States became fully engaged in the country, though these troops were primarily for training allied forces. On April 6, 2017, the United States launched 59 [[Tomahawk (missile family)|BGM-109 Tomahawk missiles]] at Shayrat airbase in Syria in response to Syria's alleged use of chemical weapons. Constitutional scholar and law professor [[Stephen Vladeck]] has noted that the strike potentially violated the War Powers Resolution.<ref>{{cite news|title=Was Trump's Syria Strike Legal? An Expert Weighs In|url=http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/07/politics/was-trump-syria-strike-legal/|access-date=7 April 2017}}</ref>

===Yemen, 2018–2019===
{{See also|Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen|assassination of Jamal Khashoggi}}
In 2018, Senators [[Bernie Sanders]] (I–[[List of United States Senators from Vermont|VT]]), [[Chris Murphy]] ([[Democratic Party (United States)|D]]–[[List of United States Senators from Connecticut|CT]]), and [[Mike Lee]] ([[Republican Party (United States)|R]]–[[List of United States Senators from Utah|UT]]) sponsored a bill to invoke the War Powers Resolution and to end U.S. support for the [[Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen|Saudi-led military intervention in Yemen]],<ref name="NBC" /> which has resulted in thousands of civilian casualties<ref name="NBC">{{cite news|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/after-inadequate-briefing-saudi-arabia-senate-advances-bill-end-u-n941386|title=Senate advances bill to end U.S. involvement in Yemen war after 'inadequate' briefing on Saudi Arabia|last=Caldwell|first=Leigh Ann|date=November 28, 2018|work=[[NBC News]]|access-date=January 1, 2019}}</ref> and "millions more suffering from starvation and disease."<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.vox.com/2018/11/28/18116442/yemen-war-powers-senate-vote-sanders|title=The Senate is moving closer to ending US support for the war in Yemen|last=Ward|first=Alex|date=November 28, 2018|work=[[Vox (website)|Vox]]|access-date=January 1, 2019}}</ref>

Sanders first introduced the bill in the [[115th United States Congress|115th Congress]] in February 2018, but the Senate voted to table the motion in March 2018.<ref>{{USBill|115|sj|54}}</ref> Interest grew in the bill after the [[assassination of Jamal Khashoggi]] in October 2018, with the Senate also approving a resolution holding Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman responsible for Khashoggi's death.<ref name="Hirschfeld">{{cite news|first1=Julie|last1=Hirschfeld Davis|first2=Eric|last2=Schmitt|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/13/us/politics/yemen-saudi-war-pompeo-mattis.html|title=Senate Votes to End Aid for Yemen Fight Over Khashoggi Killing and Saudis' War Aims|work=[[The New York Times]]|date=December 13, 2018|access-date=December 18, 2018|url-access=limited}}</ref> The Senate voted 56-to-41 to invoke the War Powers Resolution in December 2018.<ref name="Hirschfeld" /> However, the House of Representatives did not vote on the resolution before the conclusion of the 115th Congress.<ref name="Politico">{{cite web |last1=Levin |first1=Marianne |title=Senate set to again admonish Trump over Yemen on Wednesday |url=https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/12/senate-vote-yemen-1218478 |website=politico.com |publisher=Politico |access-date=13 March 2019 |date=12 March 2019}}</ref>

The bill was introduced in the [[116th United States Congress|116th Congress]] in January 2019<ref>{{USBill|116|sj|7}}</ref> with Sanders announcing a vote to take place on March 13, 2019.<ref name="Politico" /> The bill was approved by the Senate in a 54–46 vote and was approved by the House of Representatives 247–175.<ref>{{cite news |title=Senate votes to end US support of Saudi-led Yemen war |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47564274 |date=14 March 2019 |access-date=14 March 2019 |work=BBC News}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/04/politics/house-passes-yemen-war-powers-resolution/|title=House sends Yemen War Powers Resolution to Trump, where it faces veto threat|date=4 April 2019|access-date=4 April 2019|work=[[CNN]]|last1=Killough|first1=Ashley|last2=Barrett|first2=Ted}}</ref>

The bill was vetoed by President Trump on April 16, 2019. On May 2, 2019, the Senate failed to reach the two-thirds majority vote in order to override the veto.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://apnews.com/ea653a19d7d243a5b22b78a95940f722|first=Susannah|last=George|title=Trump's Yemen war policy survives Senate's veto override bid|date=May 2, 2019|access-date=February 13, 2020|work=AP News}}</ref>

===Iran, 2020===
 <!-- linked from redirect [[Iran War Powers Resolution]] -->
{{See also|Assassination of Qasem Soleimani}}
On January 4, 2020, the [[Executive Office of the President of the United States|White House]] officially notified Congress that it had carried out a fatal drone strike against Iranian General [[Qasem Soleimani]] a day earlier. House Speaker [[Nancy Pelosi]] said that the entire document was classified and that it "raises more questions than it answers." Senate Majority Leader [[Mitch McConnell]] said he would set up a classified briefing for all senators.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/476795-white-house-formally-notifies-congress-of-soleimani-strike/|title=White House sends Congress formal notification of Soleimani strike|first=Rachel|last=Frazin|work=The Hill|date=January 4, 2020|access-date=February 13, 2020}}</ref>

Senator [[Tim Kaine]] (D–VA) had already introduced a resolution to prevent the U.S. Armed Forces or any part of the government to use hostilities against Iran.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/sen-kaine-introduces-war-powers-resolution-iran-conflict|title=Sen. Kaine Introduces War Powers Resolution on Iran Conflict|first=Jacob|last=Schulz|website=Lawfare|date=January 3, 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.newsweek.com/sen-tim-kaine-introduces-resolution-stop-war-iran-ive-been-deeply-concerned-about-president-1480361|title=Sen. Tim Kaine Introduces Resolution to Stop War with Iran: 'I've Been Deeply Concerned about President Trump Stumbling into a War'|first=Melissa|last=Lemieux|work=Newsweek|date=January 3, 2020|access-date=February 13, 2020}}</ref> Senator [[Bernie Sanders]] (I–VT) and Representative [[Ro Khanna]] (D–CA) introduced an anti-funding resolution, also on January 3.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://thehill.com/policy/defense/476738-sanders-khanna-introduce-legislation-to-block-funding-for-a-war-with-iran/|title=Sanders, Khanna introduce legislation to block funding for a war with Iran|first=Tal|last=Axelrod|work=The Hill|date=January 3, 2020}}</ref>

The Trump Administration stated that the attack on Qasem Soleimani was carried out in accordance with the War Powers Resolution under the [[Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002|Authorization for Use of Military Force]] (AUMF) resolution of 2002. The legalities of using the AUMF for endless conflicts has been a source of debate.

On February 13, 2020, the Senate passed a similar legally-binding privileged resolution by a vote of 55–45. Trump vetoed the Senate resolution on May 6, 2020, stating the resolution mistakenly "implies that the president's constitutional authority to use military force is limited to defense of the United States and its forces against imminent attack." Kaine stated Trump's veto could enable "endless wars" and "unnecessary war in the Middle East".<ref>{{cite news |last1=Crowley |first1=Michael |title=Trump Vetoes Measure Demanding Congressional Approval for Iran Conflict |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/06/us/politics/trump-vetoes-iran-war-powers.html |access-date=10 May 2020 |work=The New York Times |date=6 May 2020}}</ref> The Senate attempted to override the veto the following day. The attempt need at least 67 votes to override, with it failing by a vote of 49–44.<ref>[https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-congress/u-s-senate-upholds-trump-veto-of-insulting-iran-war-powers-resolution-idUSKBN22J30A U.S. Senate upholds Trump veto of 'insulting' Iran war powers resolution] [[Reuters]]</ref>