2026-04-25T09:00:51.123Z / 美国有线电视新闻网（CNN）
扎卡里·B·沃尔夫 撰稿
2小时前发布
发布于 2026年4月25日，美国东部时间早上5:00
国会新闻 中东地区
查看所有话题
Facebook 推特 邮件 链接 Threads
链接已复制！
唐纳德·特朗普总统于2026年4月23日星期四在白宫椭圆形办公室向媒体发表讲话。
威尔·奥利弗/欧新社/彭博社/盖蒂图片社
本篇报道的预览版曾刊登在CNN的《重要事项》新闻简报中。如需免费订阅并将其发送至您的邮箱，请点击此处。
一项越南战争后出台的法律规定，在未经国会授权的情况下使用武力的时长不得超过60天。
根据《战争权力决议》的文本，特朗普政府未寻求国会批准就发动的对伊朗战争，将于5月1日达到60天期限，但目前完全不清楚接下来会发生什么。
该法律为未宣战的战争规定了时间线：
首先，48小时。 总统必须在将武装部队“投入敌对行动”后的48小时内通知国会，并解释行动的范围、理由和可能持续时长。
在特朗普提交给国会的关于伊朗问题的通知中，和其他总统一样，他表示根据宪法中总统固有的“开展美国外交关系”的权力派遣了部队。
其次，60天。 国会必须在收到该通知后的60天内授权使用武力，否则根据法律规定，总统必须终止军事行动。
第三，可能额外延长30天。 如果特朗普辩称需要继续军事行动以保障服役人员安全并从战争中撤军，他可以将60天期限再延长30天。特朗普此前曾表示，不会被迫仓促达成糟糕的战争结束协议。
精确的截止日期存在争议
国会内部对白宫60天期限的确切日期存在困惑，因为两党的律师都认为对这部联邦法规有多种解读方式。
一些人认为60天时钟从敌对行动开始之日起算（这将使截止日期为4月29日），而另一些人则援引法律文本辩称，应从白宫正式通知国会之日起算60个日历日（这将使截止日期为5月1日）。
但许多共和党议员认为停火期不应计入60天期限。甚至一些民主党人也表示，停火可能会使时间线变得复杂。
“我们不能惩罚停火。我们希望他们坐下来相互谈判，”共和党众议员布莱恩·菲茨帕特里克告诉CNN。
菲茨帕特里克表示，一旦停火结束，他准备就《战争权力法案》发起投票。
该法律从未被用于终止军事行动
议员们可以随时撤销总统的战争权力，但迄今为止民主党人此次试图这样做的努力均告失败。共和党参议员丽莎·穆尔科斯基曾批评特朗普发动战争的方式，她曾谈及推动一项授权法案，为战争的进行设置约束，但尚未付诸行动。
包括特朗普在内的多位总统都辩称该法律本身违宪。理查德·尼克松曾在该法案首次通过时否决了它，称其限制了总统保护国家的能力。国会推翻了他的否决。
一项限制特朗普在委内瑞拉行动权限的决议在参议院被否决，仅因为副总统J·D·万斯投下了打破平局的关键一票。但万斯在今年1月，即伊朗战争爆发前曾表示，《战争权力决议》不会影响特朗普治理国家的方式。
“《战争权力法案》本质上是虚假且违宪的法律，”万斯说道。“未来几周、几个月内，我们开展外交政策的方式都不会因此改变。我们处理事务的方式也将一如既往。”
尽管多届政府都持这一观点，但该法律从未被用于终止军事行动，且法院也避免介入其中。多年来，多名国会议员提起多起诉讼，质疑根据《战争权力决议》使用武力的行为，但法院从未就该法律的合宪性发表意见。
包括美国国家宪法中心和国会研究服务处记录的内容显示，此前多位总统都找到了创造性的方式，在超过60天后仍继续其军事行动，但这些行动的规模都无法与美国和以色列对伊朗的战争相提并论。
与往届政府不同的是，特朗普政府从未公开努力在国会山争取支持。
罗纳德·里根总统1982年会见其顶级外交政策顾问，讨论黎巴嫩局势。
贝斯曼档案/盖蒂图片社
里根妥协以维持美军在黎巴嫩的存在
1983年，罗纳德·里根总统与议员达成协议，避免了与国会就该法律发生宪法层面的摊牌。里根前一年曾作为国际维和部队的一部分向黎巴嫩部署海军陆战队。但直到该部队的海军陆战队员遇袭，且里根授权海军陆战队采取“积极自卫”后，他才触发了《战争权力决议》。
里根提交48小时通知后，政府与国会之间爆发了激烈辩论，议员们最终同意批准海军陆战队在贝鲁特再部署18个月。国会采取行动几天后，一名自杀式炸弹袭击者在贝鲁特海军陆战队兵营炸死了241名海军陆战队员和其他服役人员。美军于1984年2月从黎巴嫩撤军。
奥巴马重新定义“敌对行动”
2011年，巴拉克·奥巴马总统无视其司法部律师的意见，在未经国会批准的情况下，让美国参与北约对利比亚的轰炸行动超过了60天。
但他派遣国务院高级法律顾问哈罗德·科尔前往国会山就该决定作证，并阐明了他认为该法律不适用于此次冲突的理由。
他们辩称，根据法律，军事行动并未使美国部队面临“敌对行动”。科尔还辩称，美国部队实际上并无危险，因为美国的大部分行动都是由无人机实施的，而且到那时大部分作战任务已由其他北约国家承担。
特朗普政府去年在特朗普下令美国军方击沉涉嫌贩毒船只、行动时长远超60天时，借用了奥巴马的这一论点。
至少从理论上讲，特朗普现在可以辩称，由于存在停火，敌对行动已经结束，时钟应该重置。或者他可以辩称该法律根本不适用。乔治·H·W·布什和乔治·W·布什两位总统都为各自对伊拉克的战争获得了使用武力的授权，但两人都辩称他们并不需要这些授权。
克林顿称拨款已生效
1999年，比尔·克林顿总统在未经国会许可的情况下，将美军留在科索沃作为联合国维和任务的一部分超过了60天，但他辩称国会实际上已经通过批准为部署提供资金的法案给予了许可。国会也对该资金的使用时间设置了限制。
迄今为止，特朗普政府既未透露对伊朗战争的耗资，也未要求国会提交本应所需的补充拨款法案。
美国国会大厦于2026年4月20日的景象。
利·沃格尔/盖蒂图片社
国会共和党人不愿挑战特朗普
特朗普第二届政府迄今为止已有多起国会山共和党领导人向政府让渡权力的案例。这在特朗普的关税政策、他对国会此前批准的政府项目的削减、他关闭国会设立的机构的努力，以及他拒绝使用国会拨款的资金等方面均有体现。
然而，与这些举措不同的是，如果特朗普最终就《战争权力决议》与国会对抗，目前尚不清楚法院将如何或是否会介入。
到目前为止，共和党领导人在团结其党派、阻止议员在伊朗战争权力投票中倒戈方面大体上取得了成功，民主党人继续在参议院和众议院发起相关投票。但多名共和党消息人士向CNN承认，60天期限可能会导致这种团结出现裂痕。
一些共和党体制内人士暗示，国会有责任就是否批准超过60天的任何战争进行投票。这可能会引发象征性的谴责。
即使是支持这场战争的共和党人，也可能不愿投票将自己与这个有可能在中期选举中成为政治包袱的问题绑定在一起。
目前也不清楚有多少共和党议员愿意公开谴责他们的总统。即使是一些批评这场战争的共和党人也拒绝投票反对特朗普——他们担心这种谴责会让美国的对手看笑话，也担心总统可能会进行报复。
CNN的莎拉·费里斯和安妮·格雷尔为本报道撰稿。
The law sets a 60-day limit on unauthorized wars. Will Trump respect it?
2026-04-25T09:00:51.123Z / CNN
Analysis by
Zachary B. Wolf
2 hr ago
PUBLISHED Apr 25, 2026, 5:00 AM ET
Congressional news The Middle East
See all topics
Facebook Tweet Email Link Threads
Link Copied!
President Donald Trump speaks to members of the media in the Oval Office of the White House on Thursday, April 23, 2026.
Will Oliver/EPA/Bloomberg/Getty Images
A preview of this story appeared in CNN’s What Matters newsletter. To get it in your inbox, sign up for free here.
A post-Vietnam law puts a 60-day clock on the use of military force without congressional authorization.
The war in Iran – for which the Trump administration sought no approval – hits that 60-day mark May 1, according to the text of the law, the War Powers Resolution, but it’s not at all clear what will happen next.
The law lays out a timeline for undeclared wars:
First, 48 hours. The president must notify Congress within 48 hours of introducing the armed forces “into hostilities” and explain the scope, justification and likely duration of the effort.
In his notification to Congress about Iran, Trump, like other presidents, said he committed troops under a president’s inherent authority in the Constitution to “conduct United States foreign relations.”
Second, 60 days. Congress must authorize the use of force within 60 days of receiving that notification or, the law says, the military action must be terminated by the president.
Third, a possible extra 30 days. 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. Trump has said he won’t be rushed into making a bad deal to end the war.
The precise deadline is a matter of debate
There’s some confusion in Congress over the exact date of the White House’s 60-day deadline, because lawyers in both parties argue there are multiple ways to interpret the federal statute.
Some believe the 60-day clock started from the date hostilities began (which would make the deadline April 29), while others cite the text of the law to argue it’s 60 calendar days from the date the White House officially notified Congress (which would put the deadline at May 1).
But many Republican lawmakers believe that the ceasefire period does not count toward the 60-day deadline. And even some Democrats said the ceasefire could complicate the timeline.
“You can’t punish ceasefires. We want them to sit down and talk to each other,” GOP Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick told CNN.
Fitzpatrick said he is ready to force a vote on the War Powers Act if and when the ceasefire ends.
The law has never been used to end a military action
Lawmakers can revoke a president’s war powers at any time, but Democratic efforts to do so this time around have so far failed. Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who has criticized how Trump has gone about the war, has talked about pushing an authorization to put guardrails on how the war is prosecuted, but has not yet followed through.
Multiple presidents, including Trump, have argued that the law itself is unconstitutional. Richard Nixon vetoed the legislation when it first passed, arguing it constricted presidents’ ability to protect the country. Congress overrode his veto.
A resolution to limit Trump’s power in Venezuela was defeated in the Senate only because of Vice President JD Vance’s tie-breaking vote. But Vance said in January, before the Iran war, that the War Powers Resolution would not affect how Trump leads the country.
“The War Powers Act is fundamentally a fake and unconstitutional law,” Vance said. “It’s not going to change anything about how we conduct foreign policy over the next couple of weeks, the next couple of months. And that will continue to be how we approach things.”
Despite multiple administrations holding that view, the law has never been used to end a military action and courts have shied away from getting involved. There have been multiple lawsuits over the years brought by members of Congress challenging the use of force under the War Powers Resolution, but courts have not weighed in on the constitutionality of the law.
Previous presidents have found creative ways to continue their military adventures beyond 60 days despite the law’s clear wording, but none of those were of the scope and scale of the US and Israel’s war on Iran, as the National Constitution Center and the Congressional Research Service have documented.
And in contrast with previous administrations, the Trump White House has made no public effort to build support on Capitol Hill.
President Ronald Reagan meeting with his top foreign policy advisers discussing the situation on Lebanon in 1982.
Bettmann Archive/Getty Images
Reagan compromised to keep US troops in Lebanon
President Ronald Reagan avoided a constitutional showdown with Congress over the law by reaching a deal with lawmakers in 1983. Reagan had deployed Marines to Lebanon the year before as part of an international peacekeeping force. But he did not trigger the War Powers Resolution until Marines who were part of that force were killed and Reagan authorized the Marines to use “aggressive self-defense.”
After Reagan made that 48-hour notification, a fierce debate ensued between the administration and Congress, and lawmakers ultimately agreed to authorize the deployment of Marines in Beirut for 18 additional months. Days after Congress acted, a suicide bomber killed 241 Marines and other service members at the Marine barracks in Beirut. US forces withdrew from Lebanon in February 1984.
Obama redefined ‘hostilities’
President Barack Obama overruled lawyers in his Justice Department to keep the US involved in a NATO bombing campaign in Libya in 2011 for longer than 60 days without congressional approval.
But he dispatched a top State Department lawyer, Harold Koh, to give testimony about the decision on Capitol Hill, and he articulated the reasons he felt the law did not apply to the conflict.
They argued that the military campaign did not qualify as exposing US forces to “hostilities” under the law. Koh also argued that the US forces were not really in danger since most of the US action was being undertaken by drones and that other NATO nations were, by then, doing most of the work.
Obama’s argument was borrowed by the Trump administration last year when Trump ordered the US military to sink alleged drug-trafficking boats for much longer than 60 days.
Trump could, at least in theory, now say that because there is a ceasefire, hostilities have ended and the clock should be reset. Or he could argue that the law simply does not apply. Presidents George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush both obtained authorizations for the use of military force for their respective wars against Iraq, but both argued they did not need them.
Clinton said the check cleared
President Bill Clinton kepts troops in Kosovo for longer than 60 days without obtaining permission from Congress as part of a UN peacekeeping mission in 1999, but he argued that Congress had effectively given permission by authorizing money to pay for the deployments. Congress also put limits on when that money could be spent.
The Trump administration has so far declined to say how much money the war on Iran will cost or to ask Congress for a supplemental appropriations bill that should be required to pay for it.
The US Capitol is seen on April 20, 2026.
Leigh Vogel/Getty Images
Congressional Republicans have been shy about challenging Trump
The second Trump administration so far has seen multiple examples of Republican leaders on Capitol Hill ceding power to the administration. That’s been true on Trump’s tariff policy; on his cuts to government programs previously authorized by Congress; on his efforts to shut down agencies created by Congress; and on his refusal to spend money appropriated by Congress.
Unlike those efforts, however, it’s not clear how or whether courts would step in if Trump ultimately challenges Congress over the War Powers Resolution.
GOP leaders have — so far — been mostly successful in keeping their party together and preventing defections on Iran war powers votes, which Democrats continue to force in the Senate and House. But multiple GOP sources have acknowledged to CNN that the 60-day mark could mark a shift in that unity.
Some Republican institutionalists have suggested that Congress has a responsibility to hold a vote over whether to authorize any war that goes beyond 60 days. And that could result in a symbolic rebuke.
Even Republicans who support the war could be reluctant to take a vote that would closely tie them to an issue that runs the risk of becoming a political liability in the midterm elections.
It’s also not clear how many GOP members would be willing to go on record rebuking their president in wartime. Even some Republicans who have been critical of the war have refused to vote against Trump — anxious about what that kind of rebuke would look like to US adversaries as well as what kind of retribution it might provoke from the president.
CNN’s Sarah Ferris and Annie Grayer contributed to this report.
