Three ways the new Congress can stop Trump’s war

The Hill | Gene Healy

Democratic voters swept Tuesday's midterm elections following public opposition to the unauthorized $50 billion conflict with Iran under Operation Epic Fury. Exit polling indicates 74 percent of voters viewed the military campaign as a major voting factor, while seven in ten electors urged Congress to prioritise halting hostilities.

The incoming 120th Congress retains distinct constitutional options to restrict executive war-making despite prior presidential defiance of the 1973 War Powers Resolution. Defunding remains the most potent tool. By withholding additional appropriations or attaching legislative riders—statutory funding conditions—with fixed withdrawal deadlines, single-chamber majorities can effectively restrict funding to terminate operational capabilities. Alternatively, lawmakers can advance articles of impeachment against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth for conducting illegal hostilities, or initiate institutional House lawsuits in federal court to challenge executive overreach. Win or lose, structured legislative opposition maintains targeted public focus while steadily eroding executive latitude over unapproved overseas conflicts.

Comment

The legal friction surrounding Operation Epic Fury exposes structural vulnerabilities within executive war-making authority under the 1973 War Powers Resolution. Section 5(b) of the 1973 War Powers Resolution mandates the withdrawal of U.S. forces within sixty days unless Congress grants explicit statutory authorization. Continued offensive strikes against Iranian targets without statutory approval create severe procedural vulnerabilities for Department of Defense operational planners. This statutory gap exposes ongoing carrier strike group deployments in Central Command to persistent legal challenges.

The mechanics of legislative defunding rely on conditional riders embedded within annual defense appropriations bills. As demonstrated by the Case-Church Amendment of 1973, single-chamber funding prohibitions restrict specific expenditure categories for active theater operations. Denying emergency funding requests for USS Abraham Lincoln flight operations compels U.S. Central Command to divert base maintenance accounts to sustain maritime strike cycles.

Strategic Question for Discussion

Which carries greater weight in constraining extended maritime campaigns like Operation Epic Fury — statutory time limits under the 1973 War Powers Resolution or targeted appropriations riders on USS Abraham Lincoln operations, and why?

The available pattern indicates that targeted funding prohibitions under annual appropriations bills exert far more immediate operational friction than broad statutory time limits. While executive authorities historically bypass procedural requirements under the 1973 War Powers Resolution, restricting direct funding for USS Abraham Lincoln strike operations forces U.S. Central Command to curtail sortie rates or cannibalise maintenance accounts. Consequently, financial leverage provides single-chamber majorities a more decisive mechanism to limit sustained theater operations than general legislative resolutions.

Share your assessment in the comments below.

Read the original article