A Law From 2015 Returns to the Spotlight

A recent memorandum of understanding (MoU) designed to end the US-Israeli war with Iran has triggered a fierce debate in Washington: does President Donald Trump have to submit it to Congress for review? Lawmakers and pro-Israel groups are now pressing Trump to do exactly that, pointing to a law many had nearly forgotten.

At the heart of the question lies the Iran memorandum of understanding and whether it falls under a decade-old statute meant to keep Congress involved in any nuclear agreement with Tehran.

The Law at the Center of It All

The statute in question is the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, known as INARA. Passed in 2015, the law requires that any agreement with Iran related to its nuclear program be submitted to Congress for review and a possible vote of disapproval.

INARA first took effect when former President Barack Obama was negotiating the now-defunct Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran. Though that deal has since collapsed, the law itself remains firmly on the books.

US Senator Lindsey Graham, a longtime Iran hawk, was among the first to invoke it after this week’s memo was announced. He stated that under US law, any nuclear deal with Iran must be sent to Congress for review and a vote, adding that he looked forward to examining the final product.

Skepticism About the Sudden Interest

Not everyone is convinced the push is sincere. Critics, including some Democrats and pro-peace groups, have questioned why Congress is suddenly eager to assert its powers — especially after Republicans repeatedly sidestepped the legislature’s authority during the war itself.

Several theories have emerged about the motivations behind the renewed interest:

• Some see it as an attempt to lend the memorandum greater legitimacy as Trump faces criticism over its terms
• Others suspect Iran hawks may be invoking INARA as a tool to push the country back toward war
• Still others view it as genuine concern about congressional oversight being eroded

What the Law Actually Requires

INARA sets clear requirements for any agreement between the US and Iran related to Iran’s nuclear program — regardless of what form it takes or whether it is legally binding.

The law lays out a specific process:

• The president must submit the text of any agreement to Congress within five days, along with related materials
• This triggers a 30-day approval period
• During that window, members of Congress can pass a joint resolution of disapproval to kill the deal

There’s a significant catch, however. Any disapproval resolution would be subject to a presidential veto, meaning a two-thirds majority in both chambers would be needed to override it — an extremely high bar to clear.

Crucially, during the review period, the president cannot waive, suspend, or reduce statutory sanctions on Iran. That provision could directly clash with this week’s memorandum, which includes sanctions relief for Iran.

Does INARA Apply to This Memorandum?

This is where the debate grows murky. Trump has hinted he might be open to sending the memo to Congress, telling reporters, “I like the idea. I mean, who wouldn’t approve it?” Yet his administration has not actually done so, nor has it clearly stated whether it believes the memo is subject to the law.

The memorandum itself is sweeping in scope. It opens the Strait of Hormuz, lifts the US blockade on Iran’s ports, and halts fighting on all fronts, including in Lebanon. It also immediately lifts US sanctions on Iran’s fossil fuel industry while launching negotiations on the future of Iran’s nuclear program.

As part of the deal, both countries agree to maintain their nuclear “status quo” during ongoing negotiations, and Iran commits to diluting its highly enriched uranium “on site,” with details to be worked out later.

Legal Experts Weigh In

Although Trump has yet to acknowledge INARA’s authority, legal scholars across the ideological spectrum largely agree the memorandum is subject to the law.

Tess Bridgeman, a former legal adviser in the Obama White House, argued that the law applies to the new MoU and to any future final agreement negotiated in the coming months. Interestingly, despite this view, she also contends that INARA should be repealed so as not to impede ongoing diplomacy, writing that the law was never an appropriate way for Congress to engage on Iran’s nuclear program.

From the conservative side, Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard Law School professor and American Enterprise Institute fellow, also believes the memorandum should trigger an INARA review. He pointed out that Trump’s pledge to “immediately” lift sanctions on Iran’s oil industry appears to violate the law, stating that he doesn’t believe the president has the domestic authority to issue such waivers. Even so, Goldsmith expects that neither Congress nor the courts will actually confront Trump over the matter.

Will Trump Follow the Law?

Trump’s second term has been marked by an expansive view of presidential power, and that history casts doubt on whether he will comply.

His administration has previously bypassed the Constitution’s provision that only Congress can declare war. Trump justified his strikes by claiming Iran posed an “imminent threat” to the US, allowing him to act defensively without congressional approval. His officials have also argued he isn’t bound by the requirement to gain congressional approval within 60 days of launching an attack — even though the war, which began on February 28, has now lasted nearly three and a half months.

In a striking remark to Axios, Trump mused that the war taught him there are “no limits” to his power as president.

Legal experts see several ways Trump could sidestep INARA. Bridgeman suggested he could flout the law in whole or in part, particularly on the immediate sanctions relief, since his party controls Congress. Goldsmith noted the administration might argue the memorandum merely sets out terms toward an eventual agreement rather than being an agreement itself — a claim Goldsmith considers faulty, though he doubts any institution will force the president to comply.

Accusations of Hypocrisy

The renewed enthusiasm for congressional oversight has drawn pointed criticism. Several pro-Israel groups, including the Jewish Institute for National Security of America (JINSA) and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), have been among the loudest voices calling for congressional involvement.

Yet this stance sits uneasily with their earlier positions. Since the war began, JINSA defended Trump’s claim that Iran posed an “imminent threat,” granting him authority to attack without congressional approval — even as it called on Congress to pass an Authorization for the Use of Military Force.

Throughout the conflict, Congress repeatedly tried and failed to reassert its war powers. Several resolutions were introduced to halt US action against Iran, but some AIPAC-backed Democrats, including Senator John Fetterman and Representatives Jared Moskowitz and Josh Gottheimer, initially broke from their party to oppose them. Moskowitz and Gottheimer later shifted to support one resolution in March, but Congress never passed a bill capable of surviving a Trump veto.

Adding to the inconsistency, Republicans in both chambers ignored a 60-day deadline in May that legally required Trump to obtain congressional approval to continue military operations.

Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen captured the frustration bluntly, accusing Republicans of hypocrisy. He noted that senators who were “AWOL” regarding their constitutional duties around starting the war were suddenly demanding that Congress play a role in stopping it, adding, “A whole lot of warmongering going on.”

An Unresolved Constitutional Question

Ultimately, the fate of the Iran memorandum of understanding hinges on a tangle of legal interpretation, political will, and presidential ambition. While experts broadly agree that INARA should apply, few expect Congress or the courts to force the issue.

For now, the question remains open — a test not just of one agreement, but of where the limits of presidential power truly lie.