Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
This resolution proposes a change to the Constitution that would automatically limit how long Congresss authorizations for the use of military force outside the United States can last. Under the proposed amendment, any Act of Congress passed after the amendment is ratified that authorizes military force abroad without a formal declaration of war would stop having effect on the earlier of five years after enactment or the termination date already written into that Act. To become part of the Constitution, the proposed amendment must be approved by both chambers of Congress and then by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states within seven years. Until the required state ratifications happen, the proposal has no legal effect.
A proposed constitutional amendment is sent to the states after approval by both the House and Senate and must be ratified by three-fourths of state legislatures within seven years; it is not sent to the President. Until the states ratify it, the text does not change the Constitution or create law.
This proposed constitutional amendment would require that any Act of Congress (after ratification) authorizing the use of U.S. military force outside the United States, when not accompanied by a declaration of war, automatically expire on the earlier of five years after enactment or the authorization’s own termination date.
Constitutional amendments rarely pass; despite narrow clarity, securing two-thirds in both chambers and three-fourths state ratification is a very high bar.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill crisply imposes a prospective constitutional limit on the duration of future congressional authorizations of the use of military force outside the United States, but it leaves several practical and definitional gaps unaddressed.
Liberals prioritize restoring congressional oversight; conservatives prioritize military flexibility.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Liberals prioritize restoring congressional oversight; conservatives prioritize military flexibility.
Likely supportive.
Seen as restoring Congress’s Article I war powers and limiting open‑ended military commitments.
Viewed as a structural check on executive unilateralism and perpetual deployments.
Cautiously favorable but pragmatic.
Values restoring legislative oversight, while worrying about operational flexibility and burdens on Congress.
Would seek clearly defined exceptions and implementation details.
Likely skeptical or opposed.
Sees the amendment as limiting executive flexibility, weakening deterrence, and politicizing national security decisions.
Some conservatives favor congressional primacy but worry about practical harms.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Constitutional amendments rarely pass; despite narrow clarity, securing two-thirds in both chambers and three-fourths state ratification is a very high bar.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Liberals prioritize restoring congressional oversight; conservatives prioritize military flexibility.
Constitutional amendments rarely pass; despite narrow clarity, securing two-thirds in both chambers and three-fourths state ratification is…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill crisply imposes a prospective constitutional limit on the duration of future congressional authorizations of the use of military force outside the United States, but…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.