US President Donald Trump is quickly approaching a deadline to wrap up his war against Iran – or he’ll be in breach of US law.

Under the 1973 War Powers Resolution, a US president can only launch a war without congressional approval for 60 days. After that, Congress either has to declare or authorise the war – or the president must end the operations.

Even though there is currently a ceasefire between the US and Iran, the resolution would still apply to the naval troops and ships responsible for maintaining the US blockade of Iranian ports.

So, what happens if the 60-day deadline passes and Trump refuses to pull out?

What is the War Powers Resolution?

The War Powers Resolution was passed by Congress over then-President Richard Nixon’s veto in November 1973. It was a major piece of legislation designed to curb presidential usurpation of the congressional power to declare war. It came just after the withdrawal of US troops from the Vietnam War, which had not been authorised by Congress.

The law hasn’t been very successful since its passage because of its loose legal language, the numerous exceptions and qualifications, and the large number of loopholes that presidents and their advisers have discovered.

Certainly, no president since Nixon has been significantly constrained by the law. Those who have initiated conflicts without congressional approval have paid little more than lip service to its provisions.

Congress has also contributed to the failure of the War Powers Resolution through its reluctance to defend its constitutional and statutory rights to declare war.

Notwithstanding its past ineffectiveness, it may be premature to write off the War Powers Resolution in the current conflict. The main reason: it provides a mechanism for wary Republican lawmakers to try to bring an end to an unpopular war.

What does the law say?

The statutory end-date for the war comes into effect by way of two sections of the War Powers Resolution.

Under section 4, the president is required to submit a report to Congress within 48 hours of introducing US troops into “hostilities” and explain the constitutional and legislative authority under which the action was taken, the justification for the action, and the estimated scope and duration of the US involvement.

This triggers a 60-day clock under section 5 of the law. If Congress has not declared or authorised the war by then – or extended the deadline – the president must end the military action.

The beauty of this provision, at least as far as members of Congress are concerned, is that it is automatic. Legislators don’t have to do anything to implement it. And because no vote is necessary, they don’t have to go on record opposing the president’s military and national security policy.

Trump submitted his report on the war with Iran on March 2, which means the 60-day deadline expires on May 1.

So far, Congress has not responded by declaring or authorising the war, though Republicans have blocked numerous Democratic legislative efforts to end the war or constrain Trump’s ability to act without congressional approval.

Congress also has the option of extending the 60-day limit for a maximum of 30 days. This would require a vote in both the House and Senate.

Republicans are growing uneasy

The major difference between this war against Iran and other wars of recent US presidents is that this one is going extremely badly for Trump.

A new poll by Reuters and Ipsos this week found that just 34% of Americans support the US conflict with Iran.

This time, there has been no “rally-around-the-flag” effect supporting Trump’s military incursion. Members of Congress, ultra-sensitive to their constituents’ opinion, are not running scared of opposing Trump on this issue, either. Many would be risking electoral backlash by going on the record in support of the war.

Republican Senator John Curtis of Utah, for example, has written an essay saying he will not support the war after the 60-day deadline passes without congressional approval. Other Republicans have echoed his sentiments.

Given his general contempt for the Constitution and statute law, Trump will probably disregard the legal mandate to withdraw US troops. He is more likely to claim that the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional, as Nixon did when he vetoed it in 1973. As such, he may seek to challenge the law through the courts.

So, what happens if Trump does ignore the deadline? This depends on how members of Congress react. Democrats are reportedly exploring a lawsuit against the administration, though this has proven difficult to do in the past.

Trump could also claim the law doesn’t apply because US forces are not currently engaged in direct hostilities in Iran, as then-President Barack Obama did when the 60-day clock lapsed during the US military operations in Libya in 2011.

When Trump sent formal notification to Congress on March 2, he made a point of saying he was acting under his “constitutional authority as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive”, neither of which give him the power to commit the US to war without congressional approval.

He did not acknowledge the War Powers Resolution except to say that his report was “consistent with” it – a standard form of wording used by his predecessors who have all demonstrated some reluctance to adhere to its provisions.

In the past, when presidents and Congress have clashed over the War Powers Resolution, they have usually reached some accommodation, but it has depended on the circumstances and often favours the president.

This time it could be different. Trump is badly managing an unpopular war with wafer-thin majorities in Congress, six months out from the midterm election.

If US troops are still engaged in the Middle East on May 1, the War Powers Resolution could take on a relevance it hasn’t had for more than 50 years.

John Hart does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Chuck Palahniuk’s first novel, Fight Club, is as relevant and controversial today as when it first hit shelves 30 years ago.

The story follows a depressed, insomniac unnamed narrator, who unknowingly creates an alter ego – the charismatic and anarchic Tyler Durden. In between having an on-off relationship with punkish Marla, the narrator and Durden create underground fight clubs, which form into “Project Mayhem”, a secret campaign of destruction and violence targeted at corporate America.

The book, written while Palahniuk was working as a truck mechanic, had humble beginnings: its first printing reportedly sold just under 5,000 copies. The 1999 film, directed by David Fincher and starring Edward Norton, Brad Pitt and Helena Bonham Carter, was a box-office disappointment but became a cult classic on DVD – leading viewers back to the book. More than 600,000 copies have now been sold.

The book and film received mixed reviews, both criticised as a fascistic celebration of violence, and heralded as a clever satire of modern capitalism. In the past decade, Fight Club has been adopted by key figures of the manosphere: an online ecosystem of misogynists and anti-feminists who are gaining influence, particularly among young men.

Three decades on, should we condemn Fight Club for the misogyny it has inspired – or is it more complex?

Satire, not manifesto

At only just over 200 pages, Fight Club is a breeze to read. Palahniuk’s prose is stripped down and punchy. Much of its time is spent with characters spouting aphorisms and pseudo-philosophy, rather than focusing on descriptions of scenery or specific details of events.

It’s very quotable:

It’s only after you’ve lost everything … that you’re free to do anything.

And:

You are not your job, you’re not how much money you have in the bank. You are not the car you drive. You’re not the contents of your wallet. You are not your fucking khakis. You are the all-singing, all-dancing crap of the world.

This is reflected in the fast-paced, almost manic film, which repeats many of the book’s aphorisms (including these ones). Yet Fight Club is not a manifesto but a cynical satire of late 20th-century capitalism and globalisation, and the impacts it can have – particularly on men.

Critics have criticised Fight Club as promoting a toxic masculinity that would lead others to violence. Film critic Roger Ebert, for example, argued Fight Club is a “cheerfully fascist big-star movie” and “a celebration of violence in which the heroes write themselves a license to drink, smoke, screw and beat one another up”.

There are sadly many examples of people taking this message from the film. Students in my high school notoriously established their own fight club, followed by a swift crackdown. I’ll never forget the school assembly at which the principal declared anyone starting up a new club would be immediately suspended.

More concerning, however, has been the adoption of Fight Club and Durden by figures in the manosphere.

Fight Club and the manosphere

Manosphere communities see the narrator’s alter ego, Durden, as a shift from “beta” to “alpha” male. They believe the narrator abandons the feminised, “cucked” version of himself to become a better man: masculine, brash and everything all men should want to be.

Talking to Vice reporter Paulle Doyle in 2017, manosphere member Kris Cantu argued Fight Club is a film about men’s rights.

He identifies with the narrator’s obsession with “consumerism and purchasing clothes and furniture for his high-rise apartment”, which reflects his own lifestyle in his 20s. “It’s up to us to peel back those ways where we’re programmed to be a certain way, and acknowledge it, and deprogram ourselves,” he says, blaming “political correctness” for stopping “a lot of guys” who think like Durden from speaking out.

Naturally, these communities also read levels of misogyny that just isn’t there, in the book or film. These groups adopt many quasi-philosophical aphorisms from Durden, particularly the one or two that relate to women.

“We’re a generation of men raised by women,” Durden states at one point. “I’m wondering if another woman is really the answer we need.” This speaks to Palahniuk’s stated concerns that men often grow up without proper role models.

But it has been taken out of context in manosphere circles, to relay a belief women have taken too much power – and in doing so, are raising a generation of “feminised” men who need to reclaim their masculinity.

An opportunity to feel

Yes, Fight Club is a story about men discovering and reclaiming a sense of themselves in a changing world. But it’s far more complex than aggrieved men seeking to own their toxic masculinity.

In her review of the film, famed feminist Susan Faludi argued the story was about men realising they were trapped by the pressures of unending, impossible consumerism, as women had been for decades.

Faludi argued the narrator faced what she described as the “modern male predicament”:

he’s fatherless, trapped in a cubicle in an anonymous corporate job, trying to glean an identity from Ikea brochures, entertainment magazines and self-help gatherings.

In turn, he lives in a “world stripped of socially useful male roles and saturated with commercial images of masculinity”. In this context, the actions of the characters make a lot more sense. The idea of a “fight club” is not just an expression of extreme masculinity, but an opportunity for these men to feel something, in a culture that tries to remove all feeling.

As the narrator says, “you aren’t alive anywhere like you’re alive at fight club”. Even Project Mayhem itself has its redeeming qualities. While violent to an extent, Durden and his team only attack property. They go out of their way to avoid harming anyone.

Their major attack, in which they blow up corporate offices, is done at night – in a building where they have “guys on the inside”, ensuring no one dies. While obviously an extremely destructive act that would create chaos and real harm, this is an attack on corporate greed, not on innocent lives.

These men even fight in ways that subvert the most toxic elements of masculine norms. While old-school ideas of masculinity are based on the idea of the “self-made man”, the characters in fight club reject this. Palahniuk has stated, for example, that Durden’s ideas don’t really matter: what’s important is the sense of belonging they foster.

Community is seen throughout the book. The participants lose their names, the narrator himself has no name, and no one ever actually sees Durden apart from the narrator. These men are stronger together, not as individuals: a core message rejecting the individualising nature of modern society.

The film, in turn, is less an extremist manifesto than a diagnosis of how we got here.

Uniting against the hollowness

Palahniuk clearly criticises the forms of masculinity Durden embodies and the manosphere celebrates. While the text is most remembered for the clubs and their rules (“The first rule about fight club is you don’t talk about fight club”), it’s often forgotten that it ends with the narrator rejecting Durden, Project Mayhem and the violence he started.

It is not about the narrator becoming an “alpha”, but rather what Fincher called “a coming-of-age story about choosing a path to maturity”.

While the violence of the fight clubs gives the narrator the opportunity to feel something, it also only gets him so far. To properly mature, he needs to seek meaning and connection elsewhere – in the arms of Marla.

Notably, some manosphere men complain about this ending, as it doesn’t fit their ideology. Cantu, for example, calls it a “Hollywood ending”, saying “in a true Red Pill fashion it would have ended with Edward Norton throwing Marla to the side […] She’s what we call a ‘pump and dump’.”

This is a great example of manosphere men missing the point. Marla was not a “pump and dump” but a central character – the woman who allows the narrator to move on. As Faludi argues, when the narrator “sends the boys away” and “throws his lot in with the defiant, if deviant, woman he’s been afraid to court, he seems poised finally to begin life as an adult man”.

In “an increasingly hollow, consumerized world, that path lies not in conquering women but in uniting with them against the hollowness”, she says. The text is, as she claims, somewhat feminist in its conclusion.

Cultural malaise for men

In a world where “gender wars” are possibly stronger than ever, it has been easy to gloss over the complexity of Fight Club.

The book has also become a victim of a culture with a real dearth of texts that explore these issues with real nuance. Palahniuk himself has noted this, when asked about how he feels about the book being taken up by manosphere groups.

“I feel a little frustrated that our culture hasn’t given these men a wider selection of narratives to choose from,” he said in 2017. “Really, the only narratives they go to are The Matrix and Fight Club.”

Palahniuk went on to write many more novels, selling millions of copies. His latest, Shock Induction, was published in 2024. His 1999 satire Survivor, which follows the last hours of the survivor of a puritan cult, is set to be filmed in Auckland this year.

If we push through the muck, think pieces and misreadings from manosphere figures, Fight Club has a lot to offer.

It was prescient, predicting a violence and mayhem we are now, sadly, watching play out in real time. But it may also, in the end, give us a way forward. With an ending in which peace for the narrator is found in the arms of Marla, this way forward could be one based in connection between people of all genders, rather than the further fights between the “two sexes”.

That is the real legacy we should take from it.

Simon Copland does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.