President Trump recently described the U.S. naval blockade of Iran as “a very friendly blockade.” There is no such thing.
A blockade is an act of war, using armed forces to restrict another nation’s movement, commerce and access to the sea. It does not become peaceful because no one challenges it on a particular day.
Trump’s administration says the ceasefire with Iran means he no longer has to seek congressional authorization to continue the war beyond 60 days, even though federal law requires it. A ceasefire may pause the shooting. It does not make an ongoing act of war disappear. The president can argue that the blockade is necessary. He cannot honestly argue that the war is effectively over while keeping the blockade in place.
More dangerous than Trump’s word choice is Congress’ silence. The United States is more than two months into this war with Iran, the U.S. Navy is still enforcing a blockade and lawmakers have not voted to authorize the continued use of force. If Congress will not decide whether the country remains at war, what exactly is it for?
The War Powers Resolution was passed after Vietnam to prevent any president from turning temporary military action into open-ended war without authorization from Congress. It gives presidents some room to use military force in an emergency, but not unlimited room. Once a president reports hostilities, he has 60 days to get congressional authorization or terminate “any use of United States Armed Forces.” If a naval blockade is not a use of armed forces, that phrase has no meaning.
Trump’s argument is part of a broader attempt to make Congress optional in matters of war. He defended his position by suggesting that presidents have “been involved in things that are very big” before without seeking lawmakers’ approval, and that no other president had been forced to do what lawmakers were asking of him. He also argued that congressional scrutiny would hurt his negotiating position with Iran.
Trump is treating congressional weakness as presidential permission. Because other presidents have stretched their war powers and Congress has too often failed to stop them, he now treats lawful congressional action as an illegitimate constraint. But a failure to exercise power does not automatically surrender that power to another branch of government. It shows how badly the legislative branch has been weakened.
His grasp of history is wrong too. Presidents have gone to Congress for major wars. Lawmakers authorized the 1991 Persian Gulf War, the use of force after Sept. 11 and the Iraq war in 2002. Earlier Congresses exercised their constitutional power to formally declare war.
The framers of the Constitution did not expect legislators to control individual ship movements or troop deployments. But they did expect the legislative branch to decide whether to send the country to war — and whether to keep it there — because that choice is too grave to leave to one person.
That is the responsibility Congress is avoiding now. As the 60-day deadline arrived on May 1, members were leaving Washington for a weeklong recess. Rather than forcing a decision, they went home.
Members who support the war should vote to authorize it. If they believe Trump’s blockade is necessary, if they believe continued military pressure will produce a better settlement, they should put their names on that position and defend it to the people they represent.
Members who oppose the war should vote to stop it. If they believe the U.S. is drifting into an unauthorized and open-ended conflict, they should put their names on that position too. They should not settle for speeches or performative social media posts.
The one indefensible position is the one Congress appears most comfortable taking: avoiding its responsibility to vote while the country remains at war.
Every day the blockade continues, American sailors are being ordered to carry out an act of war. Every day Congress declines either to authorize or stop this operation, it makes itself part of the decision. Members may prefer to let Trump carry the blame alone, but constitutional responsibility does not work that way.
This is how military commitments become forever wars. They continue because no one with power is willing to force the question. The result is a conflict without a vote, without a clear end state and without the public accountability the Constitution requires.
Trump may call the blockade friendly or say hostilities have terminated. He may argue that congressional oversight is a threat to his negotiating leverage. But none of that changes what U.S. forces are being ordered to do, and none of it excuses Congress from doing what the people elected it to do.
If Congress believes the United States should remain at war with Iran, it should vote that way. If it does not, it should stop the war or stop funding it. What it cannot do is hide from its responsibility while pretending this remains Trump’s war alone.
This is Congress’ war now too.
Jon Duffy is a retired naval officer. He writes about leadership and democracy.
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
Viewpoint
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
The article argues that the naval blockade constitutes a use of armed forces that activates the War Powers Resolution, which mandates congressional authorization for military operations extending beyond 60 days[4][6][7][8]. The piece contends that the blockade represents an ongoing military operation and cannot legitimately be characterized as “friendly” when it deploys armed forces to restrict another nation’s commerce and maritime access.
The column asserts that the Trump administration is improperly invoking a ceasefire agreement to circumvent legal requirements for congressional authorization of continued military action[3][4]. The piece maintains that a pause in active combat does not eliminate the legal status or practical reality of ongoing military operations, and that the blockade remains an act of war even when direct fighting has ceased.
The article emphasizes that Congress has abdicated its constitutional responsibility by declining to vote on whether to authorize or terminate the military operation, characterizing legislative inaction as enabling indefinite military commitments[5][6][8]. The piece maintains that every day Congress declines to vote, it becomes complicit in decisions about military force that constitutional design intended for the legislative branch to decide.
The piece underscores that the Constitution grants Congress the sole power to declare war and authorize armed conflict, emphasizing this constitutional authority ensures major military commitments receive democratic deliberation and oversight[2][8]. The article argues this framework prevents concentration of war decisions in executive hands, as the framers understood such choices to be too consequential for any single person to make unilaterally.
Different views on the topic
The Trump administration justifies maintaining the naval blockade as an effective diplomatic tool to pressure Iran into accepting a nuclear agreement addressing U.S. security concerns[1][3]. Administration officials characterize the blockade as a calibrated alternative to direct military strikes, asserting that it accomplishes diplomatic objectives without initiating broader kinetic military operations.
The executive branch maintains that the president possesses constitutional authority to initiate military operations defending important national interests without requiring advance congressional authorization, relying on historical precedent and noting that courts have declined to intervene in disputes between branches over military authority[4][6]. This perspective distinguishes between Congress’s exclusive formal power to declare war and executive authority to employ armed forces for national defense purposes without formal legislative approval.
