The administration of Donald Trump is advancing a legal and political argument that the recent conflict with Iran no longer qualifies as an ongoing war, citing a ceasefire in place since early April as grounds to avoid seeking authorization from Congress.
The position, echoed by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth during Senate testimony, suggests that the pause in hostilities effectively halts the timeline set by the War Powers Resolution, which requires presidential military actions to receive congressional approval after 60 days.
According to a senior U.S. official speaking anonymously, Washington considers the hostilities that began in late February to have “terminated,” noting that no direct military exchanges have occurred since a ceasefire took effect on April 7. That truce, initially agreed for two weeks, has since been extended.
Despite the halt in direct clashes, tensions remain high in the region. Iran continues to exert control over the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz, while U.S. naval forces maintain measures aimed at restricting Iranian oil shipments.
Under the War Powers framework, the White House had faced a deadline to either obtain congressional approval or halt military engagement. The administration’s interpretation, however, effectively resets or suspends that requirement.
The stance has drawn criticism from lawmakers, particularly Democrats, who argue that the legal obligation remains intact regardless of a ceasefire. Some Republicans have also signaled discomfort, warning that any prolonged military involvement should be subject to legislative oversight.
Republican Senator Susan Collins underscored that the legal deadline is binding, not optional, stressing that any continued military action must be clearly defined, with achievable objectives and an exit strategy.
Meanwhile, policy voices aligned with the administration have floated alternative approaches. Richard Goldberg, a former National Security Council official, suggested reframing the mission under a new operational mandate focused on securing maritime navigation, potentially allowing continued military presence under a self-defense justification.
Legal experts, however, have strongly challenged the administration’s reasoning. Katherine Yon Ebright of the Brennan Center argued that nothing in the War Powers Resolution permits pausing or resetting the 60-day clock due to a ceasefire, describing the interpretation as an unprecedented expansion of executive authority.
While previous administrations have sometimes argued that limited or intermittent military actions fall outside the scope of the law, analysts say the scale and intensity of the Iran conflict make such arguments difficult to sustain.
The dispute sets the stage for a broader constitutional confrontation between Congress and the executive branch over the limits of presidential war powers, at a time when the situation in the Gulf remains fragile despite the absence of active combat.
