1. United States
2. N.C.
3. Letter

The War Powers Resolution is law, not a suggestion. It was passed by Congress explicitly to prevent presidents from doing what Trump is doing: waging war indefinitely, without authorization or accountability. May 1, 2026 was the 60th day of Operation Epic Fury. The deadline has passed. The president hasn't sought authorization. Congress hasn't declared war. Under the plain text of the law, military operations must be terminated. Instead, the administration invented a legal argument so brazen it would embarrass a first-year law student. Hegseth told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the ceasefire "pauses or stops" the 60-day clock. False. There has never been such a provision. No legal scholar of any credibility has argued this interpretation holds. Senator Kaine called it a "legal question" raising "constitutional concerns." Senator Collins—a Republican—voted with Democrats and said plainly that "the War Powers Act establishes a clear 60-day deadline." Senator Schiff noted that U.S. forces remain active in the Strait of Hormuz despite the halt in airstrikes. "Ceasing to use some forces while using others," he said, "does not somehow stop the clock." Then there is the administration's fallback position: that the War Powers Resolution is, in Vance's words, "fundamentally a fake and unconstitutional law." So, the executive branch is telling you that the law constraining its war-making powers doesn't apply to it—and then daring you to do something about it. So what are you doing? Six votes. Six failures. And silence. Since Operation Epic Fury began on February 28, Congress has voted 6 times on measures to assert war powers authority. Six times, those measures failed along party lines—the most recent defeat coming 50-47 on April 30, the day before the deadline expired. Democrats forced the votes. Republicans blocked them. Six votes is not a sustained campaign. Six votes is a procedural gesture. The constitutional order is not defended by losing votes and moving on. Where are the daily press conferences demanding authorization? Where are the subpoenas for classified briefings on war costs, casualties, and objectives? Where is the appropriations fight—the one tool Congress has always had that the president cannot veto away? Senator Murphy was right when he said: "We should not fail to note how extraordinary it is that our Senate Republican leadership has declined to do any oversight of a war that is costing billions of dollars every week." But noting it is not stopping it. The administration's arguments are not legal arguments. They are power moves. The ceasefire-pauses-the-clock theory has no basis in the statute. The "it's not really a war" argument—echoed by Speaker Johnson, who said that Congress doesn't need to act because "we're not at war"—is the same logic Putin used when he called his invasion of Ukraine a "special military operation." The president himself named it: he called it a war, renamed the Pentagon the Department of War, and then instructed his subordinates to argue it isn't one when the legal consequences became inconvenient. Some officials have even floated simply rebranding the operation under a new name to restart the 60-day clock. That is not legal interpretation. That is contempt for the law. The cost is real. The reckoning will come. Senator Slotkin asked the right questions: How much is this costing? What is happening to the lives of our service members? Where are the rescued pilots? The administration has refused to disclose the cost of the war or request a supplemental appropriations bill. Taxpayers are funding a war without a price tag, without authorization, and without a defined exit. Republican Senator Curtis wrote that "a period of 60 days is a fully sufficient window for presidents to take emergency measures" before remitting the decision to Congress. Senator Hawley said "the statute does need to be followed." Senator Murkowski is reportedly drafting an AUMF. These are Republicans acknowledging that the line has been crossed. If that acknowledgment does not translate into action—if it becomes yet another "concern" —then Congress will have made a permanent, institutional decision: that the War Powers Resolution is unenforceable and the president decides alone when the country goes to war, That is not the constitutional order I was taught to believe in. It should not be the one you are willing to accept. I am asking you to use every tool available. Force the appropriations vote. Introduce the AUMF and demand a floor vote. File suit if the administration continues to defy the law. Hold daily press appearances. Make it impossible for the American public to ignore that this war has no legal authorization and that Congress is either fighting to reclaim its authority or has surrendered it. I am a constituent. I pay taxes that are funding this war. I have not been consulted, through my elected representatives, about whether this country should be at war. Neither have you—because the president did not ask. The 60-day clock has expired. The law says the war must end or Congress must authorize it.