Lawmakers urge Trump to submit new Iran deal to Congress under 2015 law.

A 2015 law is now central to a debate over whether President Donald Trump must submit a recent Iran deal to Congress. Lawmakers and pro-Israel groups are urging the President to seek legislative review of the memorandum of understanding meant to end hostilities between the US, Israel, and Iran. They point to the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act as the governing precedent. This legislation, passed in 2015, mandates that any agreement with Iran concerning its nuclear program go to Congress for a vote. The act became active when Barack Obama negotiated the now-defunct nuclear deal and remains in force today.

Senator Lindsey Graham was among the first to invoke the law following the announcement of the new memo. He posted on social media that any nuclear deal with Iran must be sent to Congress for a review and a vote. He expressed anticipation for seeing the final document. However, some critics, including certain Democrats and peace advocates, question this renewed focus on congressional power. They note that Republicans previously ignored legislative authority during the war itself.

Some observers view the push as a way to legitimize the memorandum as Trump faces criticism over its terms. Others wonder if Iran hawks are using the law to push for renewed conflict. The law requires the President to submit any agreement text to Congress within five days. This submission triggers a 30-day approval period during which members can pass a joint resolution of disapproval. Such a resolution could scuttle the deal but would be subject to a presidential veto. Overriding that veto requires a two-thirds majority in both chambers, a very high bar.

During the review period, the President cannot waive or suspend statutory sanctions on Iran under any provision of law. The new memorandum includes sanctions relief for Iran, which could limit its effectiveness under these terms. President Trump has suggested he might send the deal to Congress. He told reporters earlier this week that he likes the idea of congressional approval. Yet his administration has not yet submitted the document. Officials have also not stated whether they believe the memo falls under the law.

President Trump has consistently rejected the necessity of seeking congressional authorization for his military actions against Iran. This stance shifts dramatically with the release of this week's memorandum, a document that immediately opens the strategic Strait of Hormuz, dismantles the American blockade on Iranian ports, and orders an end to hostilities across all fronts, including the conflict in Lebanon. The directive also instantly removes United States sanctions on Iran's fossil fuel sector while simultaneously initiating talks regarding the future trajectory of Iran's nuclear program.

Under the terms of this agreement, both nations have pledged to preserve the current nuclear "status quo" while negotiations proceed. Iran has further committed to diluting its highly enriched uranium "on site," though the specific technical details remain to be finalized during the upcoming discussions.

Despite President Trump's refusal to formally acknowledge the authority of the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act (INARA), legal scholars spanning the entire political spectrum assert that the memorandum is bound by existing statutes. Tess Bridgeman, a former legal adviser to the Obama White House, clarified that the law governs "this new MoU, and any future final agreement that might be negotiated in the coming months." However, she has also advocated for the repeal of INARA, arguing that the statute currently obstructs vital diplomatic efforts. "INARA was never an appropriate way for Congress to engage on Iran's nuclear program, and that is even more true today," Bridgeman stated in her analysis.

Jack Goldsmith, a professor at Harvard Law School and a fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, contends that the memorandum should indeed trigger a review under INARA. He highlighted that Trump's pledge to "immediately" lift sanctions on the oil industry appears to directly violate the act. "I don't think the president has the authority under domestic law to issue these waivers," Goldsmith wrote on the Executive Functions website. Nevertheless, he anticipates that neither Congress nor the judicial branch will challenge the President on this matter.

The central question remains whether Trump will adhere to the law. His second term has been characterized by an expansive interpretation of executive power, marked by a willingness to bypass constitutional norms. His administration has previously disregarded the constitutional provision reserving the power to declare war exclusively for Congress. Trump has maintained that Iran posed an "imminent threat" to the United States, a justification he used to launch defensive strikes without seeking legislative approval. Furthermore, administration officials have argued that the President is not obligated to secure congressional approval within the legally mandated 60-day window following an attack.

The conflict began on February 28 and has now lasted nearly three and a half months.

In an interview with Axios on Thursday, President Trump suggested the war proved there are "no limits" to his presidential power.

It is currently unknown whether he will change his course to accept the congressional collaboration required by INARA for diplomacy.

Bridgeman argued in her article that Trump might violate the law entirely or partially, especially regarding immediate sanctions relief.

Her reasoning rests on the fact that his party currently controls Congress, potentially allowing him to bypass legal hurdles.

Goldsmith noted the administration could claim the memorandum only sets terms for a future agreement rather than constituting an agreement itself.

He believes this legal argument is faulty but admitted it is doubtful any institution can force the president to comply with INARA.

A renewed interest in congressional oversight has emerged among several pro-Israel organizations.

Groups like The Jewish Institute for National Security of America (JINSA) and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) have loudly called for congressional involvement.

Since the war started, JINSA defended Trump's claims that Iran posed an "imminent threat," granting him authority to attack without approval.

However, the group also urged Congress to pass an Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) to support his actions.

Congress has repeatedly attempted and failed to re-assert its authority to decide when to send the US into war.

Since February, several war powers resolutions have been introduced to halt US action against Iran and force Trump to engage with lawmakers.

Initially, several Democrats backed by AIPAC, including Senator John Fetterman, Representative Jared Moskowitz, and Representative Josh Gottheimer, opposed these efforts.

Moskowitz and Gottheimer eventually shifted their stances in March to vote in favor of one of the resolutions.

Despite this, Congress has not passed a bill with enough votes to overcome a potential Trump veto.

Meanwhile, Republicans in both the House and Senate ignored a 60-day deadline in May that legally required congressional approval for continued operations.

In a statement on Friday, Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen characterized the Republican embrace of INARA as evidence of hypocrisy.

"Republican senators who were AWOL regarding their constitutional duties around starting the war against Iran all of a sudden demand that Congress play a role in stopping the war," he wrote.

He concluded by calling out "A whole lot of warmongering going on."

These political maneuvers directly affect communities by determining whether sanctions relief occurs and if military operations continue without oversight.

The failure to pass a bill risks leaving the public vulnerable to indefinite war powers without legislative checks.

Communities relying on sanctions relief face uncertainty if the administration flouts the law to achieve its goals.

The lack of a clear path forward creates legal risks that could undermine the rule of law for all citizens.