2026-05-01T04:01:50.869Z / 美国有线电视新闻网（CNN）
作者：摩根·里默
发布时间：2026年5月1日 美国东部时间凌晨12:01
美国海军/美国中央司令部公共事务处
一项越南战争时期出台的法律规定，国会必须在对伊朗的战争持续满60天后进行审批。但问题在于：议员们无法就这一截止日期究竟是哪一天达成共识，而如今他们已经离京休假。
根据1973年《战争权力法》，如果国会未投票批准战争，总统有权在60天内针对迫在眉睫的威胁或美国本土遭遇袭击开展军事行动。该法律规定，如果没有国会明确授权，一旦达到这一期限，总统“必须终止任何美国武装部队的军事使用”。
许多议员认为，5月1日星期五就是60天期限节点，因为总统唐纳德·特朗普已于3月2日通知国会战事爆发。一些参议院共和党人认为，这一时间点标志着国会必须介入，要么批准这场冲突，要么至少开展进一步监督。但另一些人坚持认为，总统可以单方面将美国军事行动再延长30天。还有部分共和党人辩称，停火日不应计入总时长。
这场分歧给这场冲突增添了最新的不确定性因素，而自今年早些时候战争爆发以来，国会在制约总统海外战争权力方面的角色问题就一直引发质疑。
“我们目前处于停火状态，根据我们的理解，这意味着60天的计时会暂停或停止，”国防部长皮特·赫格斯瑟周四对参议员表示。
北卡罗来纳州共和党参议员汤姆·提利斯随后对赫格斯瑟的观点提出质疑。“我认为《战争权力决议》明确规定，60天后必须采取相关行动，”他说，并补充道，等到议员们结束为期一周的休假返回后，“我们需要开始与本届政府展开对话并开展合作，以获得军事使用授权，让美国民众清楚国会支持总统的相关举措。”
与此同时，国会中的一些民主党人认为，这一60天时限甚至不适用于本次冲突，称战争初期伊朗并未构成迫在眉睫的威胁。
“在我看来，这场战争从一开始就是非法的，因为美国既没有遭遇袭击，也不存在迫在眉睫的袭击威胁。即便根据《战争权力法》，在没有任何迫在眉睫威胁的情况下，总统也无权在未经国会批准的情况下发动战争长达60天，”加州民主党参议员亚当·希夫表示。
这位加州民主党议员是一批民主党参议员中的一员，他们一直在推动就一项要求国会批准未来对伊朗军事行动的议案进行每周一次的投票。他们的第六次尝试于周四下午在参议院遭到否决，但缅因州共和党参议员苏珊·柯林斯与肯塔基州共和党议员兰德·保罗首次与民主党人站在了同一阵营。
柯林斯在一份声明中表示：“宪法赋予国会在战争与和平决策中的核心作用，而《战争权力法》明确规定了国会在60天内要么批准、要么结束美国参与外国敌对行动的时限。”
“未来对伊朗的任何军事行动都必须有明确的任务、可实现的目标以及结束冲突的清晰战略。我此次投票反对目前继续这些军事行动，除非能拿出符合上述标准的方案，”她补充道。
其他议员则援引1973年法律中的30天延期条款，坚称总统可以不经国会批准继续发动战争。根据该法律，如果特朗普辩称需要继续军事行动以保障美军人员安全并从战争中撤军，他可以将60天的时限再延长30天。
“我认为外界预期他有能力将期限延长30天，”参议院军事委员会成员、南达科他州参议员迈克·朗兹表示。“如果他不申请30天延期，我会感到意外。在此期间，我们将提出相关问题。”
掌控参议院议案投票议程的多数党领袖约翰·图恩周四暗示，参议院短期内不会就批准战争进行投票。“我们正在认真听取本党议员的意见，就目前而言，我看不到这样做的必要性，”他说。“截至目前，我还没有听到相关提议。”
阿拉斯加州共和党参议员丽莎·穆尔科斯基周四宣布，如果未来一周内看不到白宫提交“可信计划”，她将提出一项关于是否正式批准这场战争的议案。
“我不能接受我们在没有明确指示或问责机制的情况下开展无期限的军事行动。国会拥有自己的角色，必须站出来履行这一职责，履行宪法赋予我们的义务，”这位阿拉斯加州共和党议员在参议院发言时表示。
她表示，如果本届政府在5月11日当周参议院休假结束前未提交相关计划，她将在参议院复会后提出这项被称为“军事使用授权书”（AUMF）的议案。
穆尔科斯基补充道，她“坚定支持我们的军队”。但她强调，国会需要履行宪法赋予的宣战和监督职责。
对于密苏里州共和党参议员乔希·霍利而言，“我们正处于这场战争的转折点”。
“大家都知道，根据法律规定，本届政府有权申请额外的30天延期，他们可以证明这一法定框架，前提是他们准备好逐步撤军。因此，他们有一些选择。让我们拭目以待。但我确实认为，必须遵循这一法律框架，”他说。“所以，你知道，我们正处于一个节点——我认为这是一个转折点，主动权在本届政府手中，但让我们看看最终结果如何。”
与此同时，参议院议员蒂姆·凯恩对一些共和党同僚将90天作为转折点的观点嗤之以鼻。“然后就会变成120天，再然后就会永远持续下去。我们为什么要任由唐纳德·特朗普想对世界上哪个国家开战就打多久就打多久？这正是他们中的许多人想要的结果，”这位弗吉尼亚州民主党议员说道。
“我只是希望有少数人能站出来捍卫他们的宪法责任。而且我认为60天延长至90天并非自动生效。首先，白宫尚未提出申请。其次，我认为必须满足一定的标准才能批准延期，”他补充道。
希夫对此表示赞同，称：“我预计他不会这么做，因为这需要他宣称将在30天内撤军。我很难想象他会做出这样的承诺。”他还驳斥了停火会停止60天计时的说法。“这不会，”他告诉CNN。
当被问及共和党同僚寻求在《战争权力法》框架内寻求灵活性的做法时，希夫回应道：“我认为他们陷入了两难境地：一方面认识到宪法和法律要求他们结束这场战争，另一方面又担心直接与总统对抗。”
CNN的莎拉·费里斯、扎卡里·沃尔夫和杜格尔德·麦康奈尔为本报道做出了贡献。
Trump is supposed to get Congress’ approval when the Iran war hits 60 days. Lawmakers can’t agree when that is
2026-05-01T04:01:50.869Z / CNN
By Morgan Rimmer
PUBLISHED May 1, 2026, 12:01 AM ET
Sailors taxi an F/A-18F Super Hornet on the flight deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier, during operation against Iran, on March 17.
US Navy/US Central Command Public Affairs
A Vietnam-era law says Congress must sign off on the Iran war after the conflict hits the 60-day mark. The only problem: Lawmakers can’t agree when that deadline actually hits. And now they’ve left town.
Under the War Powers Act of 1973, the president has 60 days to conduct military action in response to an imminent threat or an attack on the United States if Congress has not voted to authorize a war. Without explicit congressional authorization, the law says that once that deadline is reached, the president “shall terminate any use of the United States Armed Forces.”
Many lawmakers see Friday, May 1, as the 60-day mark based on President Donald Trump notifying Congress of the beginning of hostilities on March 2. Some Senate Republicans argue that should mark an inflection point where Congress must step in and authorize the conflict or at least conduct further oversight. But others insist the president can unilaterally extend US military involvement for another 30 days. And some Republicans argue that ceasefire days do not count toward the total.
The disagreement injects just the latest element of uncertainty into a conflict that has raised questions about Congress’ role in checking the president’s war powers abroad. The extent of that power has been the subject of fierce debate among lawmakers since the war began earlier this year.
“We are in a ceasefire right now, which our understanding means the 60-day clock pauses or stops,” Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told senators on Thursday.
North Carolina Republican Sen. Thom Tillis later questioned Hegseth’s argument. “I felt like the War Powers resolution says in 60 days you have to take some action,” he said, adding that by the time lawmakers return from a week-long recess, “we need to start talking with the administration and in cooperation with them, to get an authorization for the use of military force so the American people understand the Congress is behind what the president is trying to do.”
Meanwhile, some Democrats in Congress argue that the 60-day timeline cannot even be applied to this conflict, saying there was a lack of an imminent threat from Iran at the beginning of the war.
“In my view, this war was illegal from the start, because there was no attack on the United States, there was no imminent threat of attack. Even under the War Powers Act, the president doesn’t get 60 days to make war without congressional approval in the absence of any kind of imminent threat,” said Sen. Adam Schiff.
The California Democrat has been part of a group of Democratic senators forcing weekly votes on a measure that would require congressional approval for future military action against Iran. Their sixth attempt failed on the Senate floor Thursday afternoon, but, for the first time, Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins voted with Democrats and Kentucky GOP Sen. Rand Paul.
In a statement, Collins said, “The Constitution gives Congress an essential role in decisions of war and peace, and the War Powers Act establishes a clear 60-day deadline for Congress to either authorize or end U.S. involvement in foreign hostilities.”
“Further military action against Iran must have a clear mission, achievable goals, and a defined strategy for bringing the conflict to a close. I voted to end the continuation of these military hostilities at this time until such a case is made,” she continued.
Other lawmakers point to a 30-day extension provision in the 1973 law as they insist that the president can continue to conduct the war without congressional approval. Under the law, Trump can extend the 60-day clock for another 30 days if he argues that continued military action is needed to keep service members safe while withdrawing from the war.
“I think the expectation is that he has the ability to extend it for 30 days,” said Sen. Mike Rounds of South Dakota, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. “I’d be surprised if he didn’t ask for a 30-day extension. During that time period, we’ll be asking questions.”
Senate Majority Leader John Thune, who controls what measures can receive a vote, signaled on Thursday that his chamber won’t vote on authorizing the war any time soon. “We’re listening carefully to what our members of our conference are saying, and at this point I don’t see that,” he said. “As of right now, I’m not hearing that, no.”
Sen. Lisa Murkowski announced Thursday that she plans to introduce a measure on whether to formally authorize the war if she does not see a “credible plan” from the White House in the next week.
“I do not accept that we should engage in open-ended military action without clear direction or accountability. Congress has a role, Congress has to step up and fulfill that role, that obligation that the Constitution assigns to us,” the Alaska Republican said in remarks from the floor.
She said she will introduce her measure — what’s known as an authorization for use of military force, or AUMF — when the Senate returns from recess the week of May 11 if the administration does not present that plan.
Murkowski added that she stands “firmly behind our troops.” But she stressed that Congress needs to fulfill its constitutional role of declaring war and providing oversight under the Constitution.
For Missouri Republoican Sen. Josh Hawley, “we’re at an inflection point” in the war.
“You know, under the statute, the administration has the ability to request an additional 30 days, and they can certify that statutory framework, if they are ready to draw down militarily. So, they’ve got some options there. Let’s see what happens. But I do think that framework needs to be followed,” he said. “So, you know, we’re at a point — we’re at an inflection point, I think the ball is in the administration’s court, but let’s see what we get.”
Meanwhile, Sen. Tim Kaine scoffed at the idea that some of his GOP colleagues are pointing toward the 90-day mark as a turning point. “And then it’ll be 120 days, and then it’ll be forever. Why don’t we just let Donald Trump wage war against anyone in the world for as long as he wants? That’s what many of them would do,” the Virginia Democrat said.
“I’m just hoping that there are a few who will stand up for their constitutional responsibility. And I don’t think the extension of 60 to 90 is automatic. First, the White House hasn’t asked for it. Second, I think there is a criteria that has to be met to allow the extension,” he added.
Schiff agreed, saying, “I have no expectation that he will do so, because it would require him to say he’s withdrawing forces over the 30-day period. And it’s hard for me to imagine that he is going to commit to that.” And he dismissed the argument that the ceasefire stops the clock from ticking down on the 60-day timeline. “It doesn’t,” he told CNN.
Asked about his GOP colleagues looking for flexibility within the War Powers Act, Schiff replied, “I think they’re torn between the recognition that the Constitution and the law require them to bring this war to an end and a concern with directly confronting the president.”
CNN’s Sarah Ferris, Zachary Wolf and Dugald McConnell contributed to this report.
发表回复