WASHINGTON — Since late February, the United States and Iran have engaged in a series of military exchanges marked by ambiguity over whether the situation constitutes a war. Despite President Donald Trump’s occasional use of the term "war," the Trump administration has largely refrained from officially labeling the conflict as such.
On February 28, when the U.S. and Israel began striking Iranian targets, Trump cautioned the public about potential casualties, calling the actions a “noble mission” aimed at future security. However, as the conflict prolonged and public support waned, administration officials and Trump himself shifted to describing the situation with terms such as “military operation,” “skirmish,” and “excursion.” Vice President JD Vance stated in a recent White House briefing that he would not categorize the current hostilities as a war, asserting that major combat operations had lasted just six weeks.
The administration’s evolving language reflects the political and legal complexities surrounding military engagement without a formal declaration of war by Congress. Under the 1973 War Powers Resolution, presidential authorization of hostilities must end within 60 days unless Congress grants explicit approval. The Trump administration announced the conclusion of Operation Epic Fury, the initial military campaign against Iran, on May 5 — precisely 60 days from the conflict’s start. This move coincided with the launch of “Project Freedom,” a mission to safeguard commercial shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio described the blockade of Iranian ports ordered by Trump as a “defensive measure,” rejecting notions that it constituted an act of war. Meanwhile, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth referred cautiously to a continuing “conflict” in Iran when requesting additional military funding from Congress.
Legal experts and lawmakers have noted this pattern of avoiding the term “war” is consistent with past presidential practices when circumventing the requirement of a congressional declaration. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), a constitutional law scholar, observed that while previous presidents have employed similar semantic tactics to sidestep Congress, Trump’s public framing of the conflict as a glorified war sets his approach apart.
Congress has yet to approve an Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) related to actions in Iran, unlike prior engagements in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria. Efforts to invoke the War Powers Resolution to restrict Trump’s unilateral military actions in Iran have failed in the Senate multiple times. Public opinion polls indicate low approval for the administration’s handling of the conflict, with just 26% of Americans expressing support.
Historical precedents illustrate the recurring tension over executive war powers. Former President Harry Truman’s deployment of U.S. troops to Korea in 1950 proceeded without congressional declaration but was supported financially by Congress, even as critics accused him of overstepping constitutional authority. Similarly, President George W. Bush declared the end of major combat operations in Iraq after six weeks in 2003, though fighting continued for years.
Despite efforts to distance the current situation from the label of war, President Trump has at times contradicted administration rhetoric. In interviews and social media posts, he has referred to the conflict as a war repeatedly but later echoed Vance’s characterization of it as a military conflict, citing the need for congressional approval to officially declare war.
The ongoing reluctance to formally recognize the Iran hostilities as war underscores the administration’s sensitivity to political, legal, and public opinion constraints, even as military actions and tensions persist.