Dem
47
GOP
53
Donald Trump's statement to Congress Friday that hostilities with Iran have terminated may have solved one problem but created a bigger one. On the one hand, a federal law, the War Powers Act, requires a president to get permission from Congress to fight a war for more than 60 days. By claiming the war is over, there is at least some ambiguity over whether the Act applies now.
On the other hand, while there is no more bombing, there is also no peace and the Strait of Hormuz is still closed. If Trump has taken future fighting off the table, why would Iran concede anything to Trump now? Without the threat of continued bombing, he has no leverage. Of course, the Iranians could assume he is lying and might start the bombing again, but then he would have to deal with Congress and the 60-day rule.
Trump is also trying to get out of this bind by claiming the War Powers Act (WPA) is unconstitutional. Of course, that is not his call. That would be up to the Supreme Court, which might indeed rule than any law that in any way prevented the president from doing whatever he wanted to do is de facto unconstitutional. On a different note, when Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth testified before Congress, he didn't make any claim that the Act is unconstitutional. His argument is that since hostilities have stopped, the 60-day timer has stopped. It would be nice if everyone were on the same page.
However, although there is no bombing now, the U.S. is still actively blockading Iranian ports, which under international law is definitely an act of war. In that case, Trump still needs authorization from Congress to continue the naval blockade and it doesn't appear that he is even going to ask for it.
This could be a big deal because if the Democrats capture both the House and Senate, they are likely to impeach him. To do that, they have to charge him with something. Politically it has to be something Americans understand. A charge of: "He started a war without a declaration of war by Congress, and after 60 days continued it without authorization by Congress, in violation of federal law" is something that is both understandable and has majority support.
It is worth noting that if Trump does go to his six buddies on the Supreme Court to try to get the WPA declared unconstitutional, he's got an uphill climb. The Constitution very clearly grants Congress the power to decide whether or not the country goes to war. And while this Court will certainly stand on its head, sometimes, to get the results it wants, the six conservatives are not known to be war hawks. They care about protecting the "rights" of white people, rich people, and rich, white people, but not so much about bombing Iran back to the stone age. So, Trump probably wouldn't find a receptive audience for his plainly unconstitutional argument.
Maybe someone in Trump's inner circle pointed this out to him. Late yesterday, Trump announced "Project Freedom," which would "guide" ships through the Strait of Hormuz, that is, run the Iranian blockade. This is a bet that Iran won't respond militarily by laying mines or using drones or "mosquito boats" to disable tankers. If Iran responds and the U.S. has a counterresponse, we are back to war and and the 60-day limit. Maybe Trump has this all worked out in advance, but his whole life he has gotten away with bluffing. Why should this be any different? The Iranians may well decide to test Trump. After all Iranians love a good TACO (if it is halal).